HSPD-12 mandates the creation of a standard for identity proofing and credentialing Federal employees and contractors. Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 201 (FIPS-201) outlines the requirements for implementing processes and technologies consistent with control objectives of HSPD-12. FIPS-201 establishes a standard for a Personal Identity Verification (PIV) system based on secure and reliable forms of identification credentials issued by the Federal Government to its employees and contractors. These credentials are intended to authenticate individuals who require access to federally controlled facilities, information systems, and applications. FIPS 201 addresses requirements for initial identity proofing, infrastructures to support interoperability of identity credentials, and accreditation of organizations and processes issuing PIV credentials.

FIPS 201 outlines two phases to implement an HSPD-12 compliant program. Phase I (PIV I) outlines the registration, identity proofing, and issuance process. Phase II (PIV II) outlines the technical and interoperability requirements of an HSPD-12 compliant system. USDA is currently developing PIV II, scheduled to be implemented by the required date of October 27, 2006.

Title: USDA PIV Request For Credential;

OMB Number: 0505-0022;

Expiration Date of Approval: 4/30/06;

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The HSPD-12 information collection consists of two phases of implementation: Personal Identity Verification phase I (PIV I) and Personal Identity Verification phase II (PIV II). The information requested must be provided by Federal employees, contractors and other applicable individuals when applying for a USDA credential (identification card). This information collection is necessary to comply with the requirements outlined in Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, and Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Phase I. USDA must implement an identity proofing, registration, and issuance process consistent with the requirements outlined in FIPS 201. This information collection form is required as part of USDA's PIV I identity proofing and registration process. For PIV II, implemented before 10/27/06, form AD 1197 will be eliminated and the identity process will be streamlined with the addition of a Web-based HSPD-12 system. Therefore, two estimates of burden are calculated and two process descriptions are included.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.75 hours per response for PIV I, and 4.25 hours for PIV II. The Burden is estimated based on the three prerequisites for PIV Credential issuance as well as the receipt of the PIV Credential itself.

The meeting will take place at the Economic Research Service (ERS) of USDA, 1800 M Street, NW., (3rd Floor), Washington, DC 20020. On Tuesday, March 7, 2006, at 1 p.m. the focus session will begin with introductory remarks provided by the Chair of the Advisory Board, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE), USDA, followed by remarks from officials and/or designated experts from the four agencies of USDA's Research, Education, and Economics. On Wednesday, March 8, 2006, the general focus session will begin at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with highlights on “Germ Plasma and Bio Energy”. On Thursday, March 9, 2006, the focus session will reconvene at 8 a.m. to hear recap highlights of the previous day's focus session, followed by overall Advisory Board discussions. The Advisory Board Meeting will adjourn by 12 Noon. All portions of the Advisory Board meeting are open to the public. An opportunity for public comment will be offered after the meeting wrap-up.

Written comments by attendees or other interested stakeholders will be welcomed for the public record before and up to two weeks following the Advisory Board meeting (by close of business Thursday, March 23, 2006). All statements will become a part of the official record of the Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Advisory Board Office.

Title: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

OMB Control Number: 0551-0039.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: This information is needed to administer the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. The information will be gathered from applicants desiring to receive grants under the program to determine the viability of requests for resources to implement school feeding and maternal and child nutrition programs in foreign countries and other periodic reports during the course of implementing the activities.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of the additional information is estimated to average 10.6 hours per applicant.

Respondents: Private voluntary organizations, shipping agents, ship owners/brokers, and survey companies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 156.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 7.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,607 hours.

Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Kimberly Chisley, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 720-2568.

Request for Comments: Send 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 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; or (d) 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.

Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to: William S. Hawkins, Director, Program Administration Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop 1031, Washington, DC 20250-1031; Telephone (202) 720-3241.

All responses to this notice will be summarized. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: The 2007 Census of Agriculture.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0226.

Type of Request: Intent to Request Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: The census of agriculture, conducted every 5 years, is the primary source of statistics concerning the nation's agricultural industry. It provides the only basis of consistent, comparable data for each county, county equivalent, and State in the United States and its outlying insular areas. The census of agriculture is required by law under the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-113, 7 U.S.C. 2204(g).

The 2007 census of agriculture will cover all agricultural operations in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa (AS), which meet the census definition for a farm. For the States, Guam, and CNMI, a farm is any place that produced and sold, or normally would produce and sell, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during the census year. For Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands it is any place with $500 in sales. American Samoa defines a farm without using a specific dollar value of sales.

Data collection for the censuses of agriculture for the 50 States and Puerto Rico will be conducted primarily by mail-out/mail-back procedures. Data collection for Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, CNMI, and AS, will be conducted using direct enumeration methods. NASS conducted a census survey form content test (OMB No. 5035-0243) during the winter of 2005-2006 to evaluate new content items, report form design and format, and processing procedures for the 50 States.

To minimize response burden NASS is introducing a new short form which is targeted to farm operators who have a history of only raising a few commodities. This history is determined by administrative data collected over multiple years from surveys and censuses. The short form allows a respondent to report virtually every question contained in the long form but with a streamlined approach. With fewer pages to review, respondents will be able to report their commodities more quickly. This also eliminates the need for sample data, used since the 1978 Census of Agriculture, which has increasingly caused confusion on the part of data users. A long form will be tailored to various regions of the country, as in past censuses, and used to collect data from operators with several crop and/or livestock commodities or unknown agricultural production. A screening survey conducted prior to the census will again be used to eliminate non-farm operations from the census mail list.

The Census of Agriculture Act guarantees farm operators that their individual information will be kept confidential. NASS uses the information only for statistical purposes and publishes only summarized data. These data are used by Congress when developing or changing farm programs. Many national and State programs are designed or allocated based on census data, such as soil conservation projects, funds for cooperative extension programs, and research funding. Private industry uses the data to provide more effective production and distribution systems for the agricultural community.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 50 minutes per positive response, 10 minutes per screen-out, and 1 minute per refusal.

Respondents: Farm and ranch operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,160,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,400,000 hours.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

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 will have practical utility; (b) 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; ( 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 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.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

The appointment for the twenty-five member committee, which has representation across seven categories which covers a broad range of agricultural disciplines and interests, was signed on November 16, 2005. Appointed members, by their associated category are: Consumer and Information Organizations—John Baugh, West Lafayette, IN; Janice Gengenbach, Smithfield, NE; Kent Schescke, Carmel, IN; Educational Organizations—R. Edmund Gomez, Alcalde, NM; Barry Goodwin, Cary, NC; Ron Plain, Columbia, MO. Farm Services Organizations—Jacklyn Folsom, Cabot, VT; John Hays, Alexandria, VA; Doris Mold, Cumberland, WI; Ranvir Singh, Marysville, CA; John Smylie, Palatine, IL. Government Agencies—Karen Klonsky, Winters, CA. National Farm Organizations—Patricia Berglund, Fargo, ND; Brent Blauch, Mechanicsburg, PA; Peter Daniel, Raleigh, NC; Terry Francl, Crofton, MD. Producer and Marketing Organizations—Gary Adams, Cordova, TN; Carl Brothers, Stuttgart, AR; Roger Cryan, Fairfax, VA; William Lapp, Omaha, NE; Lucy Meyring, Walden, CO; James Robb, Lakewood, CO; Ira Silvergleit, Alexandria, VA. Professional Organizations—Frank Howell, Starkville, MS; A. Gene Nelson, College Station, TX.

The duties of the Committee are solely advisory. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture with regards to the agricultural statistics program of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and such other matters as it may deem advisable, or which the Secretary of Agriculture, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, or the Administrator of NASS may request. The Advisory Committee meeting will be held on February 14-15, 2006. All meetings are open to the public. Committee members will be reimbursed for official travel expenses only.

The Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, which consists of 25 members appointed from 7 categories covering a broad range of agricultural disciplines and interests, has scheduled a meeting on February 14-15, 2006. During this time the Advisory Committee will discuss topics including Small and Minority Farm coverage in the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the needs for the 2007 Census of Agriculture follow-on surveys, and Improving Respondent Relations and Reducing Reporting Burden Publications.

The Committee meeting is open to the public. The public may file written comments to the USDA Advisory Committee contact person before or within a reasonable time after the meeting. All statements will become a part of the official records of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics and will be kept on file for public review in the office of the Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information concerning AAQTF may be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/AAQTF/ .

Draft Agenda of the February 28 through March 2, 2006, Meeting of the AAQTF:

A. Welcome to Bethesda, Maryland.

B. Discussion of Minutes from Previous Meeting.

C. Discussion of Documents to be Approved by the End of the Meeting.

D. Subcommittee Presentations.

1. Emerging Issues Subcommittee Report.

2. Research Subcommittee Report.

3. Policy Subcommittee Report.

4. Education and Outreach Subcommittee Report.

E. Environmental Protection Agency Update.

F. Next Meeting, Time and Place.

G. Public Comments.

Procedural: This meeting is open to the public. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may give oral presentations during the meeting. Those persons wishing to make oral presentations should register in person at the venue. Those wishing to distribute written material at the meeting itself, in conjunction with spoken comments, must bring 50 copies of the material with them. Written material for distribution to AAQTF members prior to the meeting must be received by Dr. Gelburd no later than Thursday February 23, 2006.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Dr. Gelburd. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and service to the government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following product and service are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On September 8, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“cut-to-length plate”) from Romania. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission , 70 FR 53333 (September 8, 2005) (“ Preliminary Results ”). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . Since the publication of the Preliminary Results , the following events have occurred.

On September 16, 2005, Mittal Steel notified the Department that in the process of preparing a pre-verification reconciliation package for a separate proceeding, the company discovered a significant quantity of subject merchandise that it failed to report in response to the Department's section A questionnaire in this administrative review. See Memorandum from John Drury to the File, dated September 16, 2005. On September 20, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted a letter to the Department indicating that it would not participate in the cost verification, scheduled to begin on September 26, 2005, in Galati, Romania. The Department received additional correspondence from Mittal Steel on September 23, 2005, notifying the Department that, with the exception of case briefs and rebuttals and any hearing held in this administrative review, Mittal Steel would no longer “actively participate” in the proceeding. See Letter from Mittal Steel to the Secretary of Commerce, dated September 23, 2005. Additionally, Mittal Steel requested that the Department remove all of the company's business proprietary data submitted during the course of this review and return or destroy that data. On October 13, 2005, the Department issued a letter to Mittal Steel, indicating that the Department was in the process of removing all business proprietary information of Mittal Steel that was currently on the record of this review and that the Department had instructed all parties to the proceeding to remove and certify the destruction of Mittal Steel's proprietary information. On October 14, 2005, the Department notified Mittal Steel that all business proprietary data submitted during the course of this review had been destroyed and that all parties to this proceeding had also confirmed the destruction of Mittal Steel's business proprietary data in their possession. See Memorandum from Patrick Edwards to the File, dated October 14, 2005. On October 18, 2005, the Department received correspondence from MEI, also requesting the removal of business proprietary information that it had submitted on the record during the course of this administrative review. Accordingly, the Department then removed all of MEI's business proprietary data from the record.

On October 17, 2005, the Department transferred to the record of this administrative review certain documentation from the immediately preceding administrative review ( i.e. , the 2002-2003 Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania) to facilitate the Department's analysis for these final results. See Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards, Case Analyst, regarding Transfer of Information to Record, dated October 17, 2005. On October 19, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted a letter to the Department, objecting to the transfer of documentation from the 2002-2003 administrative review to the record of this proceeding, stating that the Department's actions resulted in Nucor's access to Mittal Steel's 2002-2003 business proprietary data, which the Department had determined in the immediately preceding review that Nucor's counsel was not entitled to access. See Letter from Mittal Steel to the Secretary of Commerce, dated October 19, 2005. Mittal Steel asserts that its business proprietary data from the immediately preceding review is currently part of the administrative record filed with the Court of International Trade in the ongoing litigation in Mittal Steel Galati SA v. United States , Court No. 05-00311. Thus, Mittal Steel requested that the Department deny Nucor access to the business proprietary information transferred to the record of this review, because Nucor was denied APO access to the data in the immediately preceding review because Nucor filed an untimely request for an administrative protective order (“APO”). See Letter from Ann Sebastian, Director APO Unit, Import Administration to Alan H. Price, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, dated November 12, 2004.

On October 20, 2005, Nucor filed a response to Mittal Steel's letter of October 19, 2005, stating that it is entitled to access the business proprietary information transferred to the record of this administrative review, as the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 reviews are two separate proceedings, the latter of which Nucor's APO application was approved by the Department and, as such, is entitled to access all APO information which the Department places on the record as an “authorized applicant”. See Letter from Nucor Corporation to the Secretary of Commerce, dated October 20, 2005. On October 24, 2005, the Department sent a letter to counsel for Mittal Steel, stating that, as authorized applicants under the APO, counsel for Nucor is entitled to receive access to all business proprietary information presented to or obtained by the Department in this segment of the proceeding under 19 CFR sections 351.305 and 351.306. See Letter from Anne M. Sebastian, Director, APO Unit, Import Administration, to John Gurley, Arent Fox PLLC, dated October 24, 2005.

On October 28, 2005, we received a case brief from Mittal Steel. We received a case brief from Nucor and IPSCO Steel Inc., (“IPSCO”) (collectively, “petitioners”) on October 28, 2005. We received rebuttal briefs from IPSCO and Mittal Steel on November 2, 2005. Mittal Steel had requested a public hearing in this review, but withdrew its request on November 1, 2005. Therefore, no public hearing was held.

On December 28, 2005, because it was not practicable to complete the final results within the specified time period, the Department extended the deadline for the completion of the final results by thirty days. See Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Plate from Romania , 70 FR 76764 (December 28, 2005).

In our preliminary results, we announced our determination to rescind the review with respect to Metanef, MINMET, and COST, because these parties had no entries or shipments of cut-to-length plate from Romania during the POR. We additionally announced our preliminary determination to rescind the review with respect to CSR, as petitioners withdrew their request for review with regard to this company. See Preliminary Results . We have received no new information or evidence of changed circumstances that would cause the Department to reconsider that determination. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Metanef, MINMENT, CSR and COST.

The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included under this order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department finds that the application of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted with regard to Mittal Steel and MEI because both companies decided to terminate their participation in this review and removed their business proprietary information from the record, and thus have significantly impeded the Department's completion of the review. See Letter from Mittal Steel to the Secretary of Commerce, dated September 23, 2005. In addition, the Department finds that those companies have failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, as discussed further below.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority or the Commission under this title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that if a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department shall promptly notify the respondent of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of the review. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if a party has failed to act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information, the Department may apply an adverse inference. See also , the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rp. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 870.

We find that facts available is warranted in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because Mittal Steel and MEI unilaterally decided to terminate their participation in this review, and both companies removed their business proprietary information submitted through their responses to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaires from the record information necessary to calculate a margin for these companies. As such, the Department is significantly impeded in calculating a margin because critical information regarding Mittal Steel and MEI's sales and quantities of sales in the home market and in the United States are only obtainable from the companies' questionnaire responses. Therefore, an accurate margin for these companies cannot be determined. Section 782(d) of the Act does not apply in this situation because Mittal Steel and MEI have terminated their participation in the review. Thus, we are using facts available, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondent, if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. The Department finds that Mittal Steel and MEI have failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities because these companies could comply with the Department's request for information as indicated by the completed questionnaire responses that Mittal Steel and MEI submitted on the record before they withdrew these responses. Mittal Steel and MEI withdrew all of their business proprietary questionnaire responses and, thus, gave insufficient attention to their statutory duty to provide the Department with complete and accurate information. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Department finds that Mittal Steel and MEI failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities. For a detailed analysis of the Department's decision to apply AFA, see Memorandum from John Drury and Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, to the File: Final Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate form Romania: Total Adverse Facts Available and Corroboration Memorandum for Company Rate, dated February 6, 2006.

Therefore, in selecting from the facts available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted. In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, because of Mittal Steel and MEI's removal of all business proprietary data upon which any accurate margin could be calculated, the Department is applying total AFA to both Mittal Steel and MEI. For purposes of these final results, the Department will apply as AFA the current “all-others” rate of 75.04 percent, which is based on the final determination of the less-than-fair value investigation and is also the highest rate from any prior segment of this proceeding. See Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania , 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993).

We note that, in making adverse inferences, the SAA authorizes the Department to consider the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation. See SAA at 870. For purposes of our final results, we have carefully analyzed the rates contained in the petition and the rates in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation. Given that the 75.04 percent rate is the highest rate from any prior segment of this proceeding, and that Mittal Steel's calculated dumping margin from the Preliminary Results was 48.90 percent, we find that the 75.04 percent rate will prevent Mittal Steel or MEI from benefiting from its lack of cooperation in this administrative review. For a detailed analysis of the Department's corroboration of the assigned adverse-facts-available rate and further detail on the Department's determination to apply AFA to these companies, see Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Total Adverse Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum for Company Rate, from John Drury and Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, to the File, dated February 6, 2006 (“ Corroboration Memorandum ”).

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and Customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post insulators from Japan , 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada , 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).

The reliability of the AFA rate was determined by the calculation of the “Romania-wide” rate in the original LTFV investigation, and on the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department in the investigation, as well as information gathered by the Department during the present administrative review. Furthermore, the calculation of the final margins and the “Romania-wide” rate from the investigation was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania , 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993). Moreover, this rate was used in the immediately preceding administrative review as the “all others” rate and no interested party challenged the reliability of this rate. As discussed further in the Corroboration Memorandum, the Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the “all-others” rate calculation itself. Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is reliable.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States , 113 F. 3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. As there is no information on the record of this review that indicates that this rate is not relevant as AFA for Mittal Steel or MEI, we determine that this rate has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this administrative proceeding ( i.e. , 75.04 percent) is in accord with section 776(c) of the Act's requirement that secondary information be corroborated ( i.e. , that it have probative value). For further explanation of the Department's corroboration methodology in this review, see Corroboration Memorandum .

As a result of our review, we determine that the following margin based on AFA exists for the period of August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Mittal Steel and MEI, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rate indicated above. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain cut-to-length plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the final determination; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise for the most recent period; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 75.04 percent, the “Romania-wide” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

In Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States , 395 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2005), the Court remanded the Department's determination in the final results to collapse Jiangsu Hilong International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu”) and Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (“Nanlian”) with instructions to either: (1) (a) Explain with specificity how the interactions between Jiangsu and Ningbo indicate that one company has control over the other or both, especially how the invoices from Jiangsu to Hontex Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Louisiana Packing Company created a business relationship with Nanlian during the September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2000, period of review (“99/00 POR”), and (b) explain with specificity how Mr. Wei's contacts with Jiangsu and Nanlian demonstrate control of either company on behalf of the other or control over both; and (2) if the Department is unable to provide substantial evidence supporting its collapsing decision, then it is to treat Jiangsu and Nanlian as unaffiliated entities and assign separate company specific antidumping duty margins using verified information on the record.

On November 25, 2005, the Department issued the draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand (“draft results”) for comment by interested parties. No party filed comments in response to the Department's draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand. On December 9, 2005, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the Court. The remand redetermination explained that without the presumption of affiliation between Jiangsu and Nanlian from the prior administrative reviews, the invoices and Mr. Wei's contacts between the two companies were insufficient to sustain the determination to collapse the two companies. Therefore, the Department stated that it would treat Jiangsu and Nanlian as unaffiliated entities. Accordingly, Nanlian's antidumping duty margin for the 99/00 POR is 62.51 percent. The Department did not initiate a review of Jiangsu during the period of review. Thus, the Department did not determine an antidumping duty margin for Jiangsu for the 99/00 POR.

On December 29, 2005, the Court found that the Department complied with the Court's remand order and sustained the Department's remand redetermination. See CPA Remand III .

In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States , 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ Timken ”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's decision in CPA Remand III on December 29, 2005, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's final results in the 99/00 administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.

On October 7, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Preliminary Results . The administrative review covers four exporters or producer/exporters: (1) Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (“Yancheng Hi-King”); (2) Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Yancheng Yaou”) 1 ; (3) China Kingdom International (“China Kingdom”); and (4) Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Weishan Zhenyu”), and exports of the subject merchandise to the United States during the period September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004.

We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results , and received a case brief from the Crawfish Processors Alliance (“petitioners”), the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and Bob Odom, Commissioner of Agriculture (collectively, “Domestic Parties”), on November 7, 2005. We also received a rebuttal case brief from Yancheng Hi-King on November 14, 2005. On December 7, 2005, we held a public hearing in this review.

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Yancheng Hi-King, Yancheng Yaou, China Kingdom and Weishan Zhenyu have requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In our preliminary results, we found that Yancheng Hi-King, China Kingdom, and Weishan Zhenyu had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. See Preliminary Results . Also in the Preliminary Results , as Yancheng Yaou withdrew from verification, and filed a letter stating that it would no longer participate in the current administrative review, the Department determined that Yancheng Yaou had not established its eligibility for a separate rate. Id . We have not received any information since the Preliminary Results with respect to Yancheng Hi-King, Yancheng Yaou, China Kingdom and Weishan Zhenyu which would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determinations with respect to these companies.

All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,” dated

February 6, 2006 (“ Issues and Decision Memorandum ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum , is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the Herbert H. Hoover Building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculation for Yancheng Hi-King. For the final results, we have updated the surrogate value for whole crawfish, based on definitive, final Spanish import statistics. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist:

For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty margin for Yancheng Hi-King, see “Yancheng Hi-King Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China” (February 6, 2006). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU.

The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes for companies with a calculated rate, where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit ( i.e. , per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR.

The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”): (1) For subject merchandise exported by China Kingdom and Weishan Zhenyu, the cash-deposit rate will be equal to 223.01 percent; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Yancheng Hi-King, we will establish a per-kilogram cash deposit rate which will be equivalent to the company-specific weighted-average margin established in this review; (3) the cash-deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (4) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including Yancheng Yaou 2 ), the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; (5) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC producer that supplied that exporter.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

On June 7, 1988, the Department published its AD order and final amended determination on forklifts from Japan. See Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan , 53 FR 20882 (June 7, 1988). In the amended final determination the Department found margins ranging from 13.65 - 56.81 percent for the selected respondents and 39.45 percent for “all other” manufacturers/producers/exporters of forklifts from Japan. After an affirmative determination by the ITC in the first sunset review of forklifts from Japan, on June 2, 2000, the Department published the notice of continuation of the order. See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order: Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan , 65 FR 35323.

On March 1, 2005, the Department initiated, and the ITC instituted, sunset reviews of the AD order on forklifts from Japan. See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews , 70 FR 9919. As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the dumping rate likely to prevail if the AD order were revoked. See Internal-Combustion Forklift Trucks from Japan; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order , 70 FR 58373 (October 6, 2005).

On January 26, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 752 of the Act, that revocation of the AD order on forklifts from Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See ITC Determination and USITC Publication 3831 (January 2006), entitled Internal-Combustion Forklift Trucks from Japan. Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review) .

The products covered by this order are certain internal-combustion, industrial forklift trucks, with lifting capacity of 2,000 to 15,000 lbs. Imports of these products were classified under item numbers 692.4025, 692.4030, and 692.4070 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA) and are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8427.20.00, 8427.90.00, and 8431.20.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

The products covered by this order are further described as follows: Assembled, not assembled, and less than complete, finished and not finished, operator-riding forklift trucks powered by gasoline, propane, or diesel fuel internal-combustion engines of off-the-highway types used in factories, warehouses, or transportation terminals for short-distance transport, towing, or handling of articles. Less than complete forklift trucks are defined as imports which include a frame by itself or a frame assembled with one or more component parts. Component parts of the subject forklift trucks which are not assembled with a frame are not covered by this order.

Products not covered by this order are genuinely used forklifts. For the purposes of this antidumping duty order, we consider any forklift to be used if, at the time of entry into the United States, the importer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the forklift was manufactured in a calendar year at least three years prior to the year of entry into the United States. The importer must show documentation from industrial publications that reconcile the serial number and year of manufacture of the forklift. If the calendar year of manufacture is at least three years prior to its year of entry into the United States, it will not be subject to the suspension of liquidation or any assessment of antidumping duties. For example, if a forklift is entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in June 1988 and if the importer demonstrates through industrial publications that the forklift was manufactured in or before calendar year 1985, that forklift will not be covered by this order.

As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of this AD order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, is revoking the AD order on forklifts from Japan. Pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(ii), the effective date of revocation is June 2, 2005 ( i.e. , the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of continuation of the AD order). The Department will notify CBP to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after June 2, 2005, the effective date of revocation of the AD order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On October 7, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Latvia. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia , 70 FR 58687 (October 7, 2005) ( Preliminary Results ). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . On November 14, 2005, we received a case brief from the sole respondent, Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs (LM). We received a rebuttal brief from the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC) and its individual members, the petitioners in the proceeding, on November 21, 2005. At the request of the respondent, we held a public hearing on December 16, 2005.

The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( i.e. , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

The issues raised in the briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary ( Decision Memorandum ), dated February 3, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in Room B-099 of the main Department building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we adjusted the calculation methodology used in the Preliminary Results. For the date of sale in the U.S. market, we used the date of final amendment to the contract addendum as the date of sale for all sales. For the home market imputed credit expense calculation, we used interest rates published by the Bank of Latvia for loans to domestic enterprises and households as a surrogate interest rate. For the U.S. imputed credit expense calculation, we used short-term interest rates published by the Federal Reserve for commercial and industrial loans as a surrogate interest rate. These adjustments are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum .

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004:

On August 26, 2005, notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 50302) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

East Coast Observers, Inc. will conduct sea turtle abundance and relocation trawls in conjunction with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) dredging projects in waters of the Atlantic coast. Up to 350 loggerhead, 150 green, 150 Kemp's ridley, 10 hawksbill, and 10 leatherback sea turtles, and 10 shortnose sturgeon will be captured. Collected sea turtles will be handled, measured, flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged, temporarily marked with a non-toxic marker, and released at a relocation site approximately three to five miles away from the dredge project. A single tissue sample may be taken from each individual turtle for genetic analysis. Collected shortnose sturgeon will be captured, handled have a barbel clip taken, and relocated to a safe area. The permit authorizes a total of up to 5 sea turtle (loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, and hawksbill in combination) incidental mortalities over the course of the permit. The permit is issued for five years.

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

On August 15, 2005, notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 47813) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Researchers will capture up to 146 loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), 48 Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), 15 green ( Chelonia mydas ), 1 leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), and 3 hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), during the first year of the permit's five- year period. The permit authorizes research on up to 346 loggerhead, 48 Kemp's ridley, 15 green, 1 leatherback, and 3 hawksbill, sea turtles annually for the remaining four-years. Turtles will be captured by trawls, handled, blood sampled, measured, flipper and PIT tagged, photographed, and released. A subsample of animals will have barnacles and keratin removed from their shell, have cloacal samples taken, have laparoscopic and ultrasound exams, and have satellite transmitters attached. Up to 7 loggerhead and 1 leatherback may potentially be taken as accidental mortalities over the course of the entire permit. Additionally, up to 5 Kemp's ridley, green, or hawksbill sea turtles (combined total but no more than two of any given species) may potentially be taken as accidental mortalities over the course of the entire permit. The research will document size distributions, sex ratios, genetic contributions, and the health of sea turtles in coastal waters in the southeastern U.S. The research will take place in the waters from Winyah Bay, South Carolina to Cape Canaveral, Florida. The permit is issued for 5 years.

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Executive Order 12856 of August 3, 1993, “Federal Compliance With Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements,” requires that Federal facilities comply with the planning and reporting requirements of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. The executive order requires that contracts to be performed on a Federal facility provide for the contractor to supply to the Federal agency all information the Federal agency deems necessary to comply with these reporting requirements.

Number of Respondents: 14,500.

Responses Per Respondent: .921.

Annual Responses: 13,350.

Average Burden Per Response: .786.

Total Burden Hours: 10,500.

OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0147, Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information, in all correspondence.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Annual Program Cost Report.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public:

State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 80.

  Burden Hours: 385.

Abstract: Vocational Rehabilitation Services data submitted on the RSA-2 by State VR agencies for each FY used by RSA to administer and manage the Title I Program; to analyze expenditures, evaluate program performance and identify problem areas.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2918. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to IC DocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to the e-mail address IC DocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Background and Need for Agency Action Western Interconnection Project

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order Nos. 888 and 888-A require all public utilities owning or controlling interstate transmission facilities to offer non-discriminatory open access transmission services. Through these Orders, FERC addressed the need to encourage lower electricity rates by facilitating the development of competitive wholesale electric power markets through the prevention of unduly discriminatory practices in providing transmission services.

In order to be consistent with FERC Order Nos. 888 and 888-A, Western published its Notice of Final Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff) in the Federal Register on January 6, 1998. Western filed an amendment to the Tariff with FERC on January 25, 2005, to adopt Large Generator Interconnection (LGI) rules that substantially conform with those published in FERC Order Nos. 2003, 2003-A and 2003-B. Western's amended Tariff requires Western to respond to an application as presented by an applicant. Section 211 of the Federal Power Act requires that transmission services be provided upon application if transmission capacity is available.

In compliance with the FERC LGI rules, Western has committed to accommodating new transmission capacity constructed by an applicant. NBR has requested an interconnection to the Federal transmission system under Western's Tariff. Western must determine whether to grant or deny the interconnection while considering effects of the proposed project on existing customers, the environment, system reliability, and any system modifications needed to accommodate the interconnection. If the interconnection request is granted and the proposed project proceeds, Western would construct, own, operate, and maintain any required modifications to its own transmission system within the United States at the expense of NBR.

Because the proposed project would integrate a major new source of generation into Western's transmission system, Western has determined that an EIS is required under DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures, 10 CFR part 1021, Subpart D, Appendix D, class of action D6.

GDD has applied to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct two 500-kV electric transmission lines across the United States border from Mexico. Executive Order 10485, as amended by Executive Order 12038, requires that a Presidential permit be issued before electric transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border. The Executive Order provides that a Presidential permit may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the public interest and after concurrence by the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. The implementing regulations are published at 10 CFR 205.320-205.329.

In determining consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project under NEPA, determines the project's impact on electric reliability (including whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the United States electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions), and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Issuance of a Presidential permit indicates that there is no Federal objection to the project, but does not mandate that the project be completed.

The Applicants are each wholly owned subsidiaries of North Branch Holding, LLC. GDD proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain the power plant in Mexico and the short section of transmission line located in Mexico. The Applicants propose that Western construct, own, operate, and maintain the double-circuited 500-kV transmission components in the United States, at the Applicants' expense. In response to the interconnection request to Western, the transmission line would interconnect with Western's transmission system through a 500/161-kV expansion at Gila Substation, located east of Yuma. Under the proposal, Western would construct, own, operate, and maintain the 500-kV transmission line between a Point of Change of Ownership near the international border and the Gila Substation, the 500/161-kV expansion at Gila Substation, and the 500-kV transmission line between Gila Substation and Arizona Public Service Company's (APS) North Gila Substation. In that case, Western would become a co-applicant on the Presidential permit application.

Western considers the 500-kV transmission facilities south of Gila Substation, the Proposed Point of Interconnection, to be Interconnection Facilities for the sole use of the Applicants, while the path between Gila Substation and North Gila Substation is a Network Upgrade benefiting the integrated transmission system. The Interconnection Facilities will consist of the Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities, owned by GDD, and Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities, owned by Western. GDD has received an authorization from Comision Reguladora de Energia (CRE), Mexico's energy regulatory commission, to export electric energy to the United States and GDD proposes to deliver on-peak electrical power into the United States in the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona.

The total length of the 500-kV transmission system within the United States would be approximately 25 miles; 20 miles from the international border to Gila Substation and 5 miles from Gila Substation to North Gila Substation. To reduce the height, the double-circuit 500-kV transmission line may be constructed as two separate single-circuit transmission lines for a short distance near the U.S. Marine Corps Auxiliary Airfield No. 2 landing pattern. The Applicants have proposed a route for the 500-kV transmission line that crosses the border immediately north of the proposed power generation facility and then turns northeast to the boundary of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (Range). The route then proceeds north along the boundary of the Range and parallels the proposed Area Service Highway and Western's existing Sonora 69-kV transmission line. Near the northwest corner of the Range, the proposed route heads north to the Yuma Mesa Irrigation District canal and levee, then turns generally northeastward, paralleling the canal, levee, levee road, and Western's 69-kV line into Gila Substation. Leaving Gila Substation, the proposed route parallels the existing three transmission lines to the north, crossing the South Gila Valley, then turns northwest and into APS's North Gila Substation, still paralleling the existing transmission lines. DOE will evaluate opportunities to consolidate existing transmission lines with the proposed new line.

DOE will consider any additional reasonable alternatives that result from comments received in response to the scoping process described in this notice. To be considered reasonable, alternatives would need to meet the Applicants' and Western's purpose and need, and be technically feasible and economically viable. DOE will also consider reasonable alternatives that may be identified later in the EIS process.

The EIS will also consider the environmental impacts of the “No Action” alternative. Under the No Action alternative, the EIS will analyze the impacts associated with not approving an interconnection agreement and not issuing a Presidential permit.

Inside Mexico, GDD plans to construct and operate a new 550-Megawatt (MW) nominal (605-MW peaking) natural gas-fired, combined cycle power generating facility located approximately 3 miles east of San Luis Rio Colorado, State of Sonora, Mexico, and about 1 mile south of the international border. While this facility is not subject to the United States' regulatory requirements, DOE will evaluate impacts within the United States from its operation as part of its impact analysis. GDD plans to construct the power generating facility to comply with applicable United States environmental standards in addition to those of Mexico's lnstituto Nacional de Ecología. The planned generating facility would be equipped with advanced air emissions control technology, including low-NO X combustion technology and a selective catalytic reduction system for oxides of nitrogen, and catalytic oxidizers for carbon monoxide emissions control. The generating facility's primary source of water would be treated effluent from the San Luis Rio Colorado water treatment plant, and GDD would construct a pipeline system connecting the two facilities. A natural gas pipeline approximately 6 miles long would be constructed from the generating facility to an existing main gas line. GDD plans to sell off-peak power inside Mexico to the association of maquiladoras (fabrication or assembly plants in the North American Free Trade Agreement zone) of San Luis Rio Colorado and also to the Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico's national electric utility. GDD would construct, own, operate, and maintain a section of transmission line in Mexico to a point to be determined (Point of Change of Ownership).

In the EIS, DOE will examine public health and safety effects and environmental impacts within the United States from the proposed transmission facilities and from the associated Mexico generating facility. The EIS will be prepared under the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). Because the project involves action in a floodplain, the EIS will include a floodplain assessment and floodplain statement of findings following DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review (10 CFR part 1022). Tribal governments and Federal, state, and local agencies with special expertise or jurisdiction over the proposed project are being invited to become cooperating agencies on the EIS.

This notice is to inform agencies and the public of the proposed project and solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in the preparation of the EIS. To help the public frame its comments, this notice contains a list of potential environmental issues within the United States that DOE has tentatively identified for analysis. These issues include:

(1) Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants or their critical habitats (including flat-tailed horned lizard and Peirson's milk-vetch);

(2) Impacts on other biological resources;

(3) Impacts on land use, recreation, and transportation (including agriculture, urban development and the planned Area Service Highway);

(4) Impacts on floodplains and wetlands;

(5) Impacts on cultural or historic resources and tribal values;

(6) Impacts on human health and safety (including military, civilian, and agricultural aviation safety);

(7) Impacts on air, soil, and water resources (including air quality, groundwater consumption, and quality);

(8) Visual impacts; and

(9) Socioeconomic impacts and disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations.

This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts, and DOE invites interested parties to suggest specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not included above, to be considered in the EIS. Since the EIS would be prepared in compliance with U.S. law, it will only address impacts that would accrue in the United States. NEPA does not require an analysis of environmental impacts that occur within another sovereign nation that result from approved actions by that sovereign nation. Executive Order 12114 (January 4, 1979) requires Federal agencies to prepare an analysis of significant impacts from a Federal action in certain defined circumstances and exempts agencies from preparing analyses in others. The Order does not require Federal agencies to evaluate impacts outside the United States when the foreign nation is participating with the United States or is otherwise involved in the action. Here, the Mexican Government has been involved in evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the generating facility in Mexico and has issued permits authorizing the construction and operation of the generating facility and ancillary facilities, including water use. An overview of the permitting of the generating facility and associated environmental impacts analysis that was performed by the Mexican Government will be included in the Draft EIS.

Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping process, both to refine the preliminary alternatives and environmental issues to be analyzed in depth, and to eliminate from detailed study those alternatives and environmental issues that are not feasible or pertinent. All comments received will be considered and used to shape the EIS process.

Public EIS scoping meetings will be held at the location, date, and times indicated above under the DATES and ADDRESSES sections. The scoping meetings will be structured as informal open houses. They will provide interested parties the opportunity to view proposed project and EIS process information, ask questions, and make comments. DOE and cooperating agency representatives will be available to answer questions and provide additional information to attendees.

DOE invites those entities with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to be cooperating agencies on the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6. Such entities may also make a request to DOE to be a cooperating agency. Designated cooperating agencies have certain responsibilities to support the NEPA process, as specified at 40 CFR 1501.6(b).

Persons submitting comments during the scoping process will receive copies of the Draft EIS. Persons who do not wish to submit comments or suggestions at this time, but who would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIS for review and comment when it is issued, should notify Mr. Mark Wieringa at the address provided above. The Draft EIS in printed form or electronic form on a compact disc will be made available to the public upon request.

DOE anticipates the EIS process will take about 14 to 16 months and will include the public information and scoping meetings; consultation and involvement with appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, and tribal governments; public review and hearing(s) on the published Draft EIS; a published Final EIS; and publication of a Record of Decision (ROD).

The public will be provided an opportunity to review the Draft EIS and a hearing on the published Draft EIS is expected to be conducted in the third quarter of calendar year 2006. A notice of the location of these public hearings will be provided in the Federal Register and local media at a later date.

A published final EIS, a waiting period, and publication of a ROD are anticipated in early calendar year 2007.

EPA promulgated regulations on September 15, 1997 to establish MACT standards for HMIWI. 62 FR 48347. These regulations were challenged, and on April 12, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded EPA's MACT determinations for new and existing HMIWI regulations to EPA. Sierra Club v. EPA , 167 F.3d 658 (DC Cir 1999).

The settlement agreement provides, among other things, that: (1) One year after the execution of this settlement agreement, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth its proposed response to the Court's remand order in Sierra Club v. EPA ; (2) following a period of at least 30 days for public comment on the proposed rulemaking, two years after the execution of this settlement agreement, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of final rulemaking; and (3) no later than 15 days after the Administrator signs the final rulemaking and transmits it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the petitioner will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2006-0104 which contains a copy of the settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through http://www.regulations.gov . You may use the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.

Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

This proposed consent decree would resolve a deadline suit to require EPA to respond to two administrative petitions that EPA object to certain Title V permit amendments proposed by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for the Bowen plant and the seven power plants in the State of Georgia. Under the proposed decree, Sierra Club would agree to dismiss the lawsuit if the Administrator responds to the petitions by March 15, 2006. The consent decree does not specify the type of response that the Administrator must make to the petitions. If the consent decree becomes final and the Administrator responds to the petitions by March 15, 2006, Sierra Club will dismiss the case and EPA will pay Sierra Club a specified amount in settlement of its claims for attorneys' fees.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2006-0105 which contains a copy of the consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov , your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in TPPC's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. All parties are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

•  This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket identification number (ID) [OPP-EPA-HQ-2006-0068; FRL-7760-8]. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on November 25,2005, by an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/ . Follow the on-line instructions.

1. TPPC State of the Council Report.

2. Update re Section 2ee Finding Section 18s and 24c Pilot Solution for Tribes.

3. Tribal Caucus of the National Tribal Operations Committee.

4. Reports from: State FIFRA Issues Research Evaluation Group (SFIREG) FOSTTA, and Community Education Ideas.

5. OPP Tribal Strategy.

6. TPPC Strategic Planning Report and Discussion - Question on How to Incorporate Pollution Prevention into all Strategic Planning.

7. OECA Report on the National Tribal Compliance Assistance Priority.

8. Tribal Caucus (Closed to the Public and to EPA).

9. Presentation - Questions and Answers by Deputy Director EPA Office of Pesticide Programs.

10. Biopesticides.

11. Certification & Training in Indian Country Discussion.

12. Reports from EPA Regions.

13. Producer Establishment Inspections.

14. Report on Tribal Special Project Awards and the New Year Special Projects Solicitation.

15. Lifeline, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), First Nations of Canada

16. Performance Measures.

17. Presentation on the National Museum of the American Indian/Smithsonian.

18. A half day training (Tribes only).

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents for rotenone. Rotenone is a botanical insecticide, acaracide, and piscicide obtained from extracts of roots, seeds, and leaves of various plants that are members of the pea or bean family ( Leguminosae ), including jewel vine ( Derris spp. ). EPA developed the risk assessments and risk characterization for rotenone through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

Rotenone is used as a insecticide, acaracide, and piscicide in many different use sites. It is used as an insecticide/acaracide for home and garden use, as an insecticide/acaracide for agricultural crops, and as a an insecticide on domesticated animals by veterinarians and private citizens. Rotenone also has an important use as a piscicide in fisheries and in lakes and streams to eradicate unwanted species.

EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessments for rotenone. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as worker exposure information, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide.

Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise comment on risk management for rotenone. Risks of concern associated with the use of rotenone are: Risk to private citizens when rotenone is used in and around the home, garden, and on pets; post-application risk to adults, youth and children when rotenone is used around the home, garden, and on pets; risk to swimmers when rotenone is used in lakes, ponds, and streams; risk to occupational handlers when rotenone is used in agriculture, around residential homes, and when used as a piscicide in lakes, ponds and streams. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction measures.

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to rotenone, compared to the general population.

EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For rotenone, a modified, 4-Phase process with one comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its limited use and small number of users. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed.

All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for rotenone. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.”

Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Since 1992, when FDA issued its Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties (57 FR 22984, May 29, 1992), FDA has encouraged developers of new plant varieties, including those varieties that are developed through biotechnology, to consult with FDA early in the development process to discuss possible scientific and regulatory issues that might arise. The current guidance continues to foster early communication by encouraging developers to submit to FDA their evaluation of the food safety of their new protein. Such communication helps to ensure that any potential food safety issues regarding a new protein in a new plant variety are resolved early in development, prior to any possible inadvertent introduction into the food supply of material from that plant variety.

FDA believes that any food safety concern related to such material entering the food supply would be limited to the potential that a new protein in food from the plant variety could cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals or could be a toxin. This guidance describes the procedures for early food safety evaluation of new proteins in new plant varieties, including bioengineered food plants, and the procedures for communicating with FDA about the safety evaluation.

In the Federal Register of November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68381), FDA published a notice of availability with a 60-day comment period requesting public comment on the collection of information in FDA's draft guidance document titled, “Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use.”

FDA received approximately 5,000 letters in response to the November 24, 2004, notice. However, many of these letters contained comments that were not responsive to the PRA questions. For example, several comments expressed the following opinions: The collection of information was insufficient to ensure safety; the agency might not be able to commit sufficient resources to performing early food safety reviews without having to redirect resources from other tasks; the decision should not be left to the developer regarding when to submit an early food safety evaluation to the agency; and the objectivity and scientific expertise of the individuals reviewing the information may be inadequate.

(Response) These comments are general comments directed to the adequacy of the guidance, rather than specific comments relevant to the collection of information; therefore, these non-responsive comments will not be addressed in this document.

FDA received several letters with specific comments responsive to the comment request concerning the proposed information collection in the notice. The comments and FDA's responses follow.

(Comment 1) Several comments were supportive of the information collection, stating that the information collection was necessary for FDA to fulfill statutory requirements to protect the safety of the food supply. Relevant to the minimization of burden, several of these comments also noted that the information collection was appropriately limited in scope to prevent duplicative submissions among Federal agencies.

(Response) These comments provide support for the utility of the information collection and confirm that the collection will not result in a duplicative information collection among Federal agencies.

(Comment 2) One comment suggested that FDA should minimize the burden on developers by referencing in the guidance the availability of public protein databases that could be useful in the evaluation of allergen or toxin homology.

(Response) FDA does not want to reference or list the various databases because to do so would imply that FDA is endorsing any or all of them. FDA finds that there are several databases in the public domain that are easily obtained through the internet, are known in the scientific community, and are in common use by developers of bioengineered crops.

(Comment 3) One comment suggested that FDA could minimize the burden of the proposed collection of information by clarifying that a weight of the evidence approach is applied to the assessment of potential allergenicity of a new protein. The comment further suggested that alternative methods and protocols be considered in the evaluation of the allergenicity of new proteins.

(Response) FDA's guidance does not state that a weight of the evidence approach will be applied to the evaluation. The guidance describes a case-by-case evaluation that recognizes that different pieces of information may have varying importance for the food safety evaluation depending on the characteristics of the protein. As stated in the guidance, developers are free to use alternative approaches in their evaluations. The comment fails to explain how a weight of the evidence approach would reduce the burden under the PRA.

(Comment 4) One comment suggested as an approach to minimize burden on developers that FDA treat highly similar proteins as a family of proteins, if they differ only by a few amino acids but retain the same function, rather than evaluating each protein individually, though the comment further suggests that certain aspects of a protein may be evaluated individually.

(Response) FDA notes that the guidance is intended to consider specific proteins, not protein families. FDA further notes that even small changes in amino acid sequence may alter a protein, and these small differences could also have implications for food safety. However, if there is relevant information contained in a previous submission, that information can be incorporated by reference into a current submission for a new protein evaluation.

(Comment 5) One comment suggested as a means of minimizing burden of the proposed collection of information that FDA provide standard forms or formats for certain elements of the submission (e.g., bioinformatics reports). The comment also suggested minimizing burden by making greater use of electronic submissions.

(Response) FDA has considered the use of standardized forms or formats and at this time does not believe that their use would reduce the burden of the information collection. The use of standardized forms could discourage alternative approaches for the presentation of data in an evaluation that might more clearly or thoroughly set forth the data. Developers will have access to the forms and formats used by previous submitters and are free to use them; thus, at this time we do not perceive a need for a standardized form. Based on its experience in evaluation of submissions FDA will in the future revisit whether the use of standardized forms and formats would be advantageous to developers.

With respect to electronic submissions, FDA states in the guidance that electronic submissions are acceptable, but one paper copy is also requested. Efforts are underway at FDA to convert in the future to a submission process that is entirely electronic.

(Comment 6) One comment stated that a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected is to follow guidance available from the Codex Alimentarius. Although the comment did not specify which guidance from the Codex Alimentarius FDA should follow, FDA believes that the comment is referring to the Codex Alimentarius “Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants” (CAC/GL 45-2003) (the Codex Plant Guideline), containing “Annex: Assessment of Possible Allergenicity” (the Codex Allergenicity Annex). The comment also stated that FDA should make Codex guidance a mandatory part of its guidance.

(Response) FDA agrees in part and disagrees in part. FDA notes that its recommendations in this guidance are consistent with the approach recommended in the Codex Plant Guideline. In fact, FDA references the Codex Plant Guideline as a resource to be consulted by a developer in evaluating the food safety of a new protein. However, FDA notes that the Codex Plant Guideline addresses a broad range of issues associated with food safety assessment of food derived from bioengineered plants. While FDA's guidance is consistent with the Codex Plant Guideline, it does not address the entire broad range of issues as that document. FDA's guidance is focused on the food safety issues that might arise from the intermittent, low-level presence of material from a plant being developed for food and feed use. FDA believes that any potential risk from the intermittent, low level presence of such material in the food supply would be limited to the food safety of the new proteins. FDA references the Codex Plant Guideline, paragraphs 34-43 under Expressed Substances (non-nucleic acid substances) and the Codex Allergenicity Annex, for that component of the safety review.

FDA disagrees with the comment's suggestion that the agency make the Codex Plant Guideline a mandatory part of its guidance. While FDA believes that the Codex Plant Guideline and the Codex Allergenicity Annex are useful documents, it recognizes that other approaches may also be appropriate.

(Comment 7) One comment stated that while the information to be collected is essential and important for FDA to obtain, the information is inadequate to fulfill FDA's “stated and mandated goals,” and therefore it is of questionable utility.

(Response) FDA disagrees. The guidance is properly focused on the food safety assessment of a new protein produced in a new plant variety when there might be a low level, intermittent presence of material from a plant being developed for food. Although the commenter would like more information to be presented for FDA review at this stage, FDA notes that more information is not necessary because the information that the guidance recommends a developer collect and present to FDA as part of a food safety evaluation of a protein is adequate for the specific assessment that FDA is making at this stage. FDA recommends that a broader scope of information be presented to FDA for review at subsequent evaluation stages. For example, when a developer utilizes the recommendations articulated in FDA's guidance entitled, “Consultation Procedures for New Plant Varieties” (available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/consulpr.html ), FDA expects that significantly more information will be presented during the consultation.

(Comment 8) Several comments challenged the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information. These comments opined that FDA should collect more extensive information than what is proposed in the guidance, and they concluded, therefore, that FDA had underestimated the burden of the proposed information collection. The comments did not challenge the accuracy of the burden estimate for the information as proposed in the guidance.

(Response) FDA notes that the comments did not challenge the accuracy of FDA's estimate, rather they challenged what FDA recommends in the guidance. FDA believes that the estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Completing an early food safety evaluation for a new protein from a new plant variety will be a one-time burden (one evaluation per new protein). FDA cannot know how many developers will choose to complete an early food safety evaluation for their new plant protein. Many developers of novel plants may choose not to submit an evaluation because the field testing of a plant containing a new protein is conducted in such a way (e.g., on such a small scale, or in such isolated conditions, etc.) that cross-pollination with traditional crops or commingling of plant material is not likely to be an issue. Also, other developers may have previously communicated with FDA about the food safety of a new plant protein, for example, when the same protein was expressed in a different crop.

FDA scientists predict that this draft guidance will generate about 20 to 150 early food safety evaluations yearly. While there is uncertainty as to the number of developers who will choose to submit an evaluation, FDA estimates that the annual number of early food safety evaluations will be closer to the lower bound estimate of 20 evaluations rather than the upper bound estimate of 150 evaluations. This estimation is supported by the fact that on average there have been nine initial biotechnology consultations per year. An initial biotechnology consultation has traditionally been the first discussion between a developer and FDA about a food made from a new bioengineered plant variety; it is usually bioengineered varieties of plants that are the subject of a consultation with FDA.

The early food safety evaluation for new proteins includes six main data components. Four of these data components are easily and quickly obtainable, having to do with the identity and source of the protein. FDA estimates that completing these data components will take about 4 hours per evaluation. In table 1 of this document, row 1 shows that for 20 evaluations, the total burden for these 4 data components is 80 hours.

Two data components ask for original data to be generated. One data component consists of a bioinformatics analysis which can be performed using publicly available databases. The other data component involves `wet' lab work to assess the new protein's stability and the resistance of the protein to enzymatic degradation using appropriate in vitro assays (protein digestibility study).

The paperwork burden of these two data components consists of the time it takes the company to put together the information on these two data components to submit to FDA. We estimate that these two data components will take 16 hours to complete (8 hours for each component). In Table 1 of this document, row 2 shows that for 20 evaluations, the total burden for these two data components is 320 hours.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Respondents are sponsors of marketing applications that contain clinical data from studies covered by the regulations. These sponsors represent pharmaceutical, biologic and medical device firms. The applicant will incur reporting costs in order to comply with the final rule. Applicants will be required to submit, for example, the complete list of clinical investigators for each covered study, not employed by the applicant and/or sponsor of the covered study, and either certify to the absence of certain financial arrangements with clinical investigators or disclose the nature of those arrangements to FDA and the steps taken by the applicant or sponsor to minimize the potential for bias. The clinical investigator will have to supply information regarding financial interests or payments held in the sponsor of the covered study. FDA has said that it has no preference as to how this information is collected from investigators and that sponsors/applicants have the flexibility to collect the information in the most efficient and least burdensome manner that will be effective. FDA estimated that the total reporting costs of sponsors would be less than $450,000 annually. Costs could also occur after a marketing application is submitted if FDA determines that the financial interests of an investigator raise significant questions about the integrity of the data.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)), provides that every agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Under part 10 (21 CFR part 10), § 10.30 sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may submit to FDA, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to the Division of Dockets Management (DDM)), a citizen petition requesting the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) to issue, amend, or revoke a regulation or order, or to take or refrain from taking any other form of administrative action.

The Commissioner may grant or deny such a petition, in whole or in part, and may grant such other relief or take other action as the petition warrants. Respondents are individuals or households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions, and businesses or other for-profit institutions or groups.

Section 10.33, issued under section 701(a) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request reconsideration of part or all of a decision of the Commissioner in a petition submitted under § 10.25 (initiation of administrative proceedings). A petition for reconsideration must contain in a well-organized format a full statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which the petition relies. The grounds must demonstrate that relevant information and views contained in the administrative record were not previously or not adequately considered by the Commissioner. The respondent must submit a petition no later than 30 days after the decision has been made. However, the Commissioner may, for good cause, permit a petition to be filed after 30 days. An interested person who wishes to rely on information or views not included in the administrative record shall submit them with a new petition to modify the decision. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for reconsideration. Respondents to this collection of information are individuals or households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions, and businesses or other for-profit institutions who are requesting a reconsideration of a matter from the Commissioner.

Section 10.35, issued under section 701(a) of the act, sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to DDM), the Commissioner to stay the effective date of any administrative action.

Such a petition must provide the following information: (1) The decision involved; (2) the action requested, including the length of time for which a stay is requested; and (3) a statement of the factual and legal grounds on which the interested person relies in seeking the stay. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for a stay of action. Respondents to this information collection are interested persons who choose to file a petition for an administrative stay of action.

Section 10.85, issued under section 701(a) of the act, sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to the DDM), an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on a matter of general applicability. An advisory opinion represents the formal position of FDA on a matter of general applicability. When making a request, the petitioner must provide a concise statement of the issues and questions on which an opinion is requested, and a full statement of the facts and legal points relevant to the request. Respondents to this collection of information are interested persons seeking an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on the agency's formal position for matters of general applicability.

In the Federal Register of November 16, 2005 (70 FR 69574), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA sponsors must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is typically a version of the drug that was previously approved. Sponsors of ANDAs do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are withdrawn from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection is the subject of approved NDA 17-048 held by Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories (Wyeth Ayerst). PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection is a testing agent to help diagnose problems or diseases of the stomach. This test determines how much acid a patient's stomach produces.

PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, was approved on July 26, 1974. Wyeth Ayerst ceased manufacture of PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, in March 2002, and requested that FDA withdraw approval of the NDA (68 FR 49481, August 18, 2003). Therefore, it was moved from the “Prescription Drug Product List” to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.

Under 21 CFR 314.161(a)(3), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness when a person petitions for such a determination under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and § 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30).

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP submitted a citizen petition dated March 7, 2005 (Docket No. 2005P-0104/CP1), under § 10.30, requesting that the agency determine whether PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. After considering the citizen petition and reviewing agency records, FDA has determined that PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, approved under NDA 17-048, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner identified no data or other information suggesting that PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, was withdrawn from sale as a result of safety or effectiveness concerns. FDA's independent evaluation of relevant literature and data has not uncovered anything that would indicate that this product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. ANDAs that refer to PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, may be approved by the agency.

Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (HOGANSAC). The tentative agenda includes the following:

(1) Opening remarks by the Committee Sponsor (RADM Duncan) or the Committee Sponsor's representative, Executive Director (CAPT Kaser) and Chairperson (Ms. Patricia Clark).

(2) Approval of the October 18, 2005 minutes.

(3) Old Business:

(a) Dredging projects.

(b) AtoN Knockdown Working Group.

(c) Navigation Operations subcommittee report.

(d) Area Maritime Security Committee Liaison's report.

(e) Technology subcommittee report.

(f) Deep draft Entry Facilitation Working Group.

(g) Port Coordination Team Updates.

(h) Limited Visibility Working Group.

(i) Liquified Natural Gas Working Group.

(4) New Business.

(a) Vessel Traffic Service State of the Waterways Address.

(b) Swearing in of new member.

(c) Other presentations/New business.

Working Groups Meeting. The tentative agenda for the working groups meeting includes the following:

(1) Presentation by each working group of its accomplishments and plans for the future.

(2) Review and discuss the work completed by each working group.

Working groups have been formed to examine the following issues: Dredging and related issues, electronic navigation systems, AtoN knockdowns, impact of passing vessels on moored ships, boater education issues, facilitating deep draft movements and mooring infrastructure. Not all working groups will provide a report at this session. Further, working group reports may not necessarily include discussions on all issues within the particular working group's area of responsibility. All meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Members of the public may make presentations, oral or written, at either meeting. Requests to make oral presentations or distribute written materials at the full HOGANSAC meeting should reach the Coast Guard five (5) working days before that meeting. Requests to have written materials distributed to each member of the full committee in advance of their meeting should reach the Coast Guard at least ten (10) working days before the full HOGANSAC meeting and should include fifteen (15) copies of the materials.

For information on facilities or services for the handicapped or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Director, Executive Secretary, or Assistant to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible.

The Coast Guard is issuing MARSEC Directive 104-6 for those owners and operators of vessels subject to 33 CFR parts 101 and 104 to provide direction to U.S. flagged vessels operating in high risk areas where acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships is prevalent. Owners and operators have the primary responsibility for ensuring the security of their vessels. Owners and operators must include the performance standards listed in the MARSEC Directive in their vessel security plans.

The performance standards do not impose new industry requirements but provide supplemental direction to assist with the development of vessel security plans required by 33 CFR parts 101 and 104.

To ensure these performance standards are disseminated efficiently and consistently, Coast Guard Area/District Commanders and COTPs will notify appropriate owners and operators of vessels regulated under 33 CFR parts 101 and 104. The COTP or Area/District Commander will confirm, prior to distributing the MARSEC Directive, that the individual(s) is a “covered person” with a “need to know”, and that the MARSEC Directive will be safeguarded as SSI as defined in 49 CFR part 1520.

Owners/operators of vessels regulated under 33 CFR parts 101 and 104 may also contact the local COTP to obtain a copy of the applicable MARSEC Directive. Local COTP contact information can be found in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

The Coast Guard is issuing this MARSEC Directive to assist owners and operators of the affected maritime industries in developing security procedures to deter acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea for incorporation into vessel security plans required by 33 CFR part 104.

The MARSEC Directive contains SSI. If disclosed, the SSI could be used to subvert or exploit the security programs of vessels. Therefore, this MARSEC Directive is not subject to public disclosure, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 40119.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 (50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on applicable overpayments or underpayments of customs duties must be in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code rate established under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 was amended (at paragraph (a)(1)(B) by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-206, 112 Stat. 685) to provide different interest rates applicable to overpayments: one for corporations and one for non-corporations.

The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.

In Revenue Ruling 2005-78, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2006, and ending March 31, 2006. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of seven percent (7%). For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of six percent (6%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of seven percent (7%). These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2006, and ending June 30, 2006.

For the convenience of the importing public and Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from before July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.

On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)  1 was enacted. Section 7105 of the SAFETEA-LU provides that a commercial motor vehicle operator registered to operate in Canada or Mexico shall not operate a commercial motor vehicle transporting hazardous materials in commerce in the United States until the operator has undergone a background records check similar to that required of commercial motor vehicle operators licensed in the United States to transport hazardous materials in commerce. This requirement becomes effective 6 months after enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, which would be February 10, 2006. However, the statute also gives TSA the discretion to extend the implementation date an additional six months if necessary. This Notice announces TSA's decision to extend the implementation date until such time as TSA issues a separate notice or regulatory action to implement the SAFETEA-LU requirements, but no later than August 10, 2006.

Accordingly, the effective date of section 7105 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) is extended to August 10, 2006, unless TSA issues a Notice or other regulatory action before that date with an earlier date for implementing the requirements under the statute.

On December 3, 1998 Chas Coal LLC submitted a lease by application serialized as KYES-50213. The coal in the LBA is to be developed by conventional underground methods. The tracts, designated 545b and 3094 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 in the National Forest System, are located on the upper end of the Left Fork of Blue Hole Creek in southern Clay County on the DBNF and encompass 314.53 acres. Estimated recoverable federal reserves of bituminous coal from the Hazard No. 8 seam are 792,335 tons. The proximate analysis of the coal is as follows: 14,033 BTU/lb. with 2.12% moisture, 0.87 sulfur, 5.03 ash, 54.26 fixed carbon, and 38.58 volatile matter.

The EA consists of an analyst of environmental impacts that could result from leasing Federal coal and the alternatives. In accordance with the Federal coal management regulations 43 CFR 3422 and 3425, not less than 30 days prior to the publication of a notice of sale, the Secretary shall solicit public comments on the EA, FMV and MER of the tracts proposed to be offered for lease and on factors that may affect FMV and MER. In addition, notice is also given that a public hearing will be held on (insert hearing date) requesting comments on the EA, FMV, and MER.

Procedures for leasing Federal coal are provided by 43 CFR 3400. The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (lead agency) the Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States' Jackson Field Office, the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining, and the Kentucky Department of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, cooperative agencies, prepared a Land Use Analysis and Environmental Assessment (LUA/EA) to address coal lease application KYES-50213. The DBNF, Redbird Ranger District mailed scoping letters to all individuals on the district mailing list requesting public input on the LUA/EA in 1999, and again on May 28, 2004. Public Notices requesting input concerning this tract was published in the Manchester Enterprise, Manchester, Kentucky, on June 3, 2004, and June 10, 2004, and on the DBNF web site. The DBNF signed a Decision Record consenting to allow leasing and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Comments on the EA, FMV, and MER should address, but are not limited to the following factors:

1. The method of mining to be employed in order to obtain MER;

2. The method of determining FMV for the coal to be offered;

3. The quality and quantity of the coal resource;

4. If this resource is likely to be mined as part of an existing mine;

5. The price that the mined coal would bring when sold;

6. Costs, including mining and reclamation, of producing the coal and the times of production and impacts the leasehold may have on the area;

7. Depreciation and other tax accounting factors;

8. The percentage rate at which anticipated income streams should be discounted, either in the absence of inflation or with inflation, in which case the anticipated rate of inflation should be given;

9. Any comparable sales data of similar coal lands; and

10. Restrictions to mining which may affect coal recovery.

The values given above may or may not change as a result of comments received from the public and changes in market conditions between now and when final economic evaluations are completed.

As provided by 43 CFR 3422.1(a), proprietary data marked as confidential may be provided in response to this solicitation of public comments. Data so marked shall be treated in accordance with the laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of such information. A copy of the comments submitted by the public on FMV and MER, except those portions identified as proprietary and meeting exemptions stated in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), will be available for public inspection at the Bureau of Land Management office noted above.

If you wish to withhold your name or address from public review or from disclosure under the FOIA, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by the FOIA. All submissions from organizations, businesses and individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be available for public inspection in its entirety.

In response to a proposal submitted by Questar E&P (QEP), the BLM published in the December 19, 2003, Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The Greater Deadman Bench Region (GDBR) involves approximately 98,785 acres located in Townships 6 to 8 South, Ranges 21 and 25 East, Salt Lake Base Meridian, about 20 miles south of Vernal, Uintah County, Utah. The DEIS analyzes the effects of a maximum natural gas and oil development scenario within the GDBR that is conceptual in nature. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines would be determined through future site-specific assessments required for each facility. QEP's proposal includes drilling an additional 1,020 natural gas and 219 oil wells and constructing associated ancillary transportation and transmission facilities within the project area. BLM-administered lands account for about 85% (83,860 acres) of surface and mineral estate lands within the BDGR. The State of Utah's Utah State School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration accounts for about 12% (1,440 acres) of surface and mineral estate lands; and the remaining 4% (3,470 acres) consists of various privately owned surface and mineral estate lands within the project area. QEP proposes to drill 1,239 wells at the rate of 100-120 wells per year over a period of 10 years, or until the resource base is fully developed. Of this total number, 891 wells would be drilled at new locations and 348 wells would be drilled from existing well pads.

As set out in the NOI, as of March 2003, the GDBR includes about 278 existing oil and water-injection wells producing from or injecting water into the Green River formation and 300 gas wells producing from the Wasatch formation. About 57 miles of primary roads and 314 miles of secondary roads have been constructed within the region. The new gas wells would be drilled to the Uinta, Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk/Mancos, and the Frontier/Dakota formations. The new oil wells would be drilled to the Green River formation.

The DEIS describes in detail and analyzes the impacts of QEP's Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action incorporates standard operating procedures and applicant-committed best management practices currently employed on BLM-administered public lands in the Uintah Basin that mitigate impacts to the environment. Six additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The following is a summary of the alternatives:

1. Proposed Action —Up to 1,020 natural gas and 219 oil wells would be drilled to the Uinta, Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde Group, Blackhawk/Mancos and the Frontier/Dakota formations. About 170 miles of new roads and 235 miles of pipelines, 22 new central tank facilities and 15 new gas compressor stations would be constructed to support this proposed development. At this time the Proposed Action is the BLM's preferred alternative.

2. No Action Alternative —Oil and gas development on Federal lands under the Proposed action would not be implemented. However some level of development would continue to occur under APDs previously approved by the authority of the 1985 Book Cliffs RMP. An additional 130 wells would be located on State of Utah and private leases.

3. Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Further Analysis—

a. No new development on Federal lands.

b. Suspension of operations for an extended period of time.

c. Exchange of leases.

d. Full-field directional Drilling.

e. Conventional oil and gas development.

f. Best Management Practices (BMP).

The public is encouraged to comment on any of these alternatives.

The BLM welcomes your comments on the Greater Deadman Bench Region DEIS. The BLM asks that those submitting comments make them as specific as possible with reference to chapters, page numbers, and paragraphs in the DEIS document. Comments that contain only opinions or preferences will not receive a formal response; however, they will be considered as part of the BLM decision-making process. The most useful comments will contain new technical or scientific information, identify data gaps in the impact analysis, or will provide technical or scientific rationale for opinions or preferences. It is BLM's practice to make comments, including the names and street addresses of each respondent, available for public review at the BLM office listed above during business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m), Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. Your comments may be published as part of the EIS process. Individual respondents may request confidentiality.

If you wish to withhold your name or street address, or both, from public review, or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. BLM will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

Gasco Production Company proposes to expand its operations by drilling 1,538 wells within the Monument Butte-Red Wash, West Tavaputs, and East Tavaputs Exploration and Development Areas (as delineated in the Draft Vernal RMP) through the year 2020 based on a 40, 80, and 160 acre spacing pattern. This EIS is directly north of, but not related to, the West Tavaputs EIS that is ongoing in the Price Field Office BLM. Estimated new surface disturbance associated with the construction of well pads, new access roads, and pipelines would be approximately 10,302 acres. Existing roads within the project area and approximately 400 miles of newly constructed roads would provide the primary access routes to the new well sites. Approximately 525 miles of pipelines would be constructed and buried where conditions allow. Additional compression and processing facilities will be required to accommodate the new wells.

Major issues include potential impacts to special status plants and animals, vegetation, socio-economics, cultural resources, air quality, and soils. The EIS will consider and analyze potential impacts of natural gas development at the levels projected by Gasco, or as refined during the scoping process. This analysis will include a site-specific evaluation of Gasco's proposal and an appropriate range of alternatives. Alternatives identified at this time include the proposed action and the no action alternatives. Additional alternatives such as application of additional mitigation measures based on best management practices and/or higher well density may be developed if necessary based on issues and concerns identified through the scoping process.

The management of BLM public lands and resources encompassed by the project area is directed and guided by the BLM's Record of Decision for the Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plan. The majority of the proposed project lies within an area that was previously partially developed for oil and gas production and is designated as Category 2 for oil and gas leasing by the BLM. Category 2 areas are those that are open to oil and gas leasing with stipulations to protect sensitive surface resources.

The North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project is a landscape-level project proposing to utilize a combination of western juniper treatments (mechanical and nonmechanical methods) and wildland (prescribed and natural) fire to treat fuels and to restore habitat. Implementation of the project would reduce the increased influence of western juniper and related fuels in mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, quaking aspen, mountain mahogany, old growth juniper (established before 1870), and riparian plant communities.

Section 113(c) of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 states, “The Secretary shall emphasize the restoration of the historic fire regime in the Cooperative Management and Protection Area and the resulting native vegetation communities through active management of western juniper on a landscape level. Management measures shall include the use of natural and prescribed burning.”

The Resource Management Plans for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area and the Andrews Management Unit contain overall direction and guidance for proposed management actions such as those analyzed in the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement. Management actions analyzed include seeding of native species, reduction of western juniper (established before 1870), fencing, and management of wildland fire.

Preliminary issues and management concerns were identified by BLM and through public scoping. Major issues addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement include management of woodlands, rangeland vegetation, Steens Mountain Wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic river corridors, wildlife habitat, special status species, wildland fire/fuels, recreation, cultural resources, noxious weeds, water quality, aquatic resources, fisheries, biological soil crusts, and social and economic values. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement considered American Indian traditional practices.

Cooperating agencies having specific expertise or interests in the project were invited to participate. The public and interest groups also participated and will continue to have every opportunity to participate during formal comment periods. The public and interest groups will also have opportunities for participation through the regularly scheduled Steens Mountain Advisory Council meetings.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement contains five alternatives. The Continuation of Current Management No Action Alternative does not propose any increase above current levels of western juniper management or fuels reduction within the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project area. Private lands could still be treated according to landowner management objectives. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would still occur in the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project area under this alternative, but management would be for purposes of restoring natural fire to the Cooperative Management and Protection Area.

The No Treatment No Action Alternative does not propose any fuels reduction through western juniper treatments. This alternative is not consistent with the Andrews Management Unit or Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area Resource Management Plan direction. This alternative does not meet the objectives of the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project but is analyzed for purposes of effect analysis and comparison. Under this alternative, encroaching juniper would not be managed in the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project area. Natural wildland fires would still occur in the project area and would be managed in a manner consistent with the Resource Management Plans and the BLM Burns District's Fire Management Plan.

The Partial Landscape Alternative proposes active fuels reduction and juniper management on private and public lands outside of wilderness, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic river corridors. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would still occur in the aforementioned areas under this alternative.

The Limited Landscape Alternative incorporates many of the description and features of the Partial Landscape Alternative. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would occur in wilderness, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic river corridor areas under this alternative and would include the use of prescribed wildland fire for western juniper management and fuels reduction and restoration of natural fire regimes.

The Full Landscape Alternative incorporates many of the description and features of the Partial Landscape Alternative and Limited Landscape Alternatives. The Full Landscape Alternative proposes active, landscape-level, western juniper management and fuels reduction on private and public lands including wilderness, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic river corridors. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would occur in the aforementioned areas under this alternative. Management could include the use of prescribed wildland fire, nonmotorized hand tools and nonmechanized transportation for western juniper management and fuels reduction. Additional treatment methods, including the use of other tools following publication of a minimum requirement decision guide, could be considered after a project review occurring on a 3- to 5-year basis.

Public input during scoping as well as internal scoping identified at least 20 issues for analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement. These issues are outlined in Chapter 1 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Opportunities for public involvement have included two separate public scoping periods. Along with participation by the Steens Mountain Advisory Council, the BLM Burns District has worked with Harney County Court, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns Paiute Tribe, and Harney Soil and Water Conservation District.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in eastern Montana. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. The Council will hear updates on the Miles City Resource Management Plan, the Pumpkin Creek land exchange,the coal bed natural gas SEIS, weed funding, and other issues.

This action will allow for completion of a pending land exchange and clear the records of an unneeded withdrawal. The land is open to mining under the provisions of the Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act, 30 U.S.C. 621 (2000). Since this act applies only to land withdrawn for power purposes, the provisions of the act are no longer applicable to the land included in this revocation order.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), and pursuant to the determination by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in DVCO-561-000, it is ordered as follows:

1. The Executive Order dated July 2, 1910, which established the Bureau of Land Management's Power Site Reserve No. 32, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described land:

2. At 9 a.m. on May 12, 2006, the land described in Paragraph 1 will be opened to the operation of the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid applications received on or prior to 9 a.m. on May 12, 2006, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order of filing.

3. The State of Colorado, with respect to the land described in Paragraph 1, has a preference right for public highway rights-of-way or material sites until May 11, 2006, and any location, entry, selection, or subsequent patent shall be subject to any rights granted the State as provided by the Act of June 10, 1920, section 24, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 818 (2000).

4. The land described in Paragraph 1 has been open to mining under the provisions of the Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. 621 (2000), and these provisions are no longer applicable.

Title: Historical Well Data Cleanup Project; Wells Without Assigned MMS API Numbers—Notice to Lessees.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0137.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

The OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1332(6) states that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.”

The MMS's Historical Well Data Cleanup Project is currently underway and is expected to last several years to allow operators ample time to provide the missing or corrected data. This notice announces our intention to request a 3-year extension for this information collection.

The information we collect under this NTL, is missing data for wellbores that MMS has not assigned API numbers and other well data discovered as missing while completing the well database cleanup project. We are not able to manage and utilize data from drilling operations accurately without the information for the missing wells. We will use the information to identify other well data ( e.g. , logs, surveys, tests) missing from our records, geologically map existing MMS data to the correct wellbore/location, and correctly exchange information with the operators and industry. Our geoscientists can use the information to evaluate resources for lease sales for fair market value. With respect to safety concerns, we believe that there may be anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 unidentified completed and abandoned wellbores (bypasses and sidetracks), some of which may contain stuck drill pipe or other materials. In approving permits and other operations in an area, it is important for us to know what may be adjacent to or near the vicinity of the activity we are approving to minimize the risk of blowouts, loss of well control, and endangerment to life, health, and the environment. This is particularly important as, over the years, the number of wells drilled constantly increases, thereby increasing the risk to adjacent activities if operators are not aware of what might be in the area.

We will protect information respondents submit that is considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and 30 CFR 250.196, “Data and information to be made available to the public.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 56,250 hours for approximately 25,000 wells, based on:

(1) 1/4 hour to locate and copy a summary of drilling operations ( e.g. , scout tickets) for each well.

(2) 2 hours to retrieve and analyze each well file and retrieve other missing data. There are no recordkeeping requirements.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no cost burdens for this collection.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “ * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.

Public Comment Procedures: MMS's practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor this request to the extent allowable by law; however, anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202) 208-7744.

The MMS requests comments from states, local governments, Native groups, tribes, the oil and gas industry, federal agencies, environmental and other interest organizations, and all other interested parties to assist in the preparation of a 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing program for 2007-2012 and the applicable EIS.

The draft proposed program document may be downloaded off the MMS website at www.mms.gov. The document also is available as part of our electronic commenting system noted above. Hard copies will be made available by contacting the 5-Year Program Office at 703-787-1215.

Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain a schedule of proposed OCS oil and gas lease sales determined to “best meet national energy needs for the 5-year period following its approval or reapproval.” This draft proposed program is the first proposed schedule of OCS lease sales for the 2007-2012 timeframe. The areas identified as proposed program areas in this notice are ones that warrant further study and analysis based on oil and gas resource estimates and comments received in response to the August 24, 2005 Request for Information. Inclusion of areas in the draft proposed lease sale schedule provides a basis for gathering information and conducting analyses to inform policy makers whether to include these areas for leasing consideration in the new 5-year program. Before the new 5-year program is approved and implemented, the MMS must accept and consider comments on the draft proposed program and issue for public review a proposed program, a draft EIS, a proposed final program, and a final EIS.

In developing the draft proposed program for 2007-2012, the MMS considered leasing in the areas of the OCS that are included in the current 5-year program for 2002-2007 and additional areas off Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic coast. Some of these areas are currently withdrawn from disposition by leasing through June 30, 2012, under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341) and have been subject to annual congressional moratoria. There will be no leasing of such areas unless the President chooses to modify the withdrawal and Congress discontinues the annual statutory moratoria. The analyses conducted for the proposed program may provide the information necessary for a potential modification of the withdrawal areas. The draft program proposes sales in offshore areas that have the highest oil and gas resource values and highest industry interest or are off the coasts of states that have expressed interest in learning more about potential energy exploration off their coasts. The proposed schedule is responsive to the recommendations of affected state and local governments.

On January 3, 2006, the MMS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the setting of Federal OCS administrative boundaries beyond state submerged lands for planning, coordination, and administrative purposes. The Supplementary Information in the January notice contained a section entitled “methodology.” Using equidistance as a method to establish maritime boundaries, in the absence of special circumstances or agreement to the contrary, is consistent with customary domestic and international law and conventions. It should also be noted that, although the three maps appended to the January 3, 2006 Notice depicted an extension of the shelf beyond the U.S. exclusive economic zone only in the Gulf of Mexico, this did not suggest that the United States does not have an extended shelf in other areas. Further, the depicted limits and boundaries do not prejudice or affect in any way United States sovereign rights or jurisdiction within or seaward of these limits and boundaries. Some of the planning area boundaries have been moved to correspond to the new administrative lines. The number of planning areas has not changed; it remains at 26. See Maps 1 and 2 for the redrawn planning areas.

Some aspects of this draft proposed plan use these administrative boundaries. Congress has recently considered several legislative proposals that would establish state seaward lateral boundaries for OCS revenue sharing and other purposes. If such legislation is passed before this plan becomes final, we would consider adjustments to the areas offered in this 5-year plan to reflect the same boundary lines, if appropriate.

The draft program proposes a total of 21 OCS lease sales in 7 areas (4 areas off Alaska, 2 areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and 1 area in the Atlantic). Maps A and B show the areas proposed for leasing. Table A lists the location and timing of the proposed lease sales in areas that are available for leasing consideration, i.e. , not withdrawn or subject to congressional moratoria. Table B lists the location and timing of the proposed lease sales in areas that are withdrawn and/or subject to moratoria.

In the Alaska Region, the draft program proposes multiple lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and North Aleutian Basin Planning Areas, which are three areas of interest to Alaska, the MMS, and the oil and gas industry. Multiple sales are consistent with the Governor of Alaska's recommendations. The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area is currently withdrawn by presidential order under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. In response to the August Request for Information, the Governor of Alaska stated that “[t]he borough governments and regional Native corporations in the vicinity of the North Aleutian Basin have all expressed support for including this area in the next draft of the 2007-2012 program. During the comment period on the draft, I hope that public and industry input will provide the Secretary and the state with adequate information to decide whether or not to ask the President to lift the current withdrawal and allow a sale during the 2007-2012 program.” In order to have this opportunity, the North Aleutian Basin is included in this proposal.

The Cook Inlet Planning Area is included on the schedule for a “special interest sale” as a potential source of natural gas for local residents and businesses. This approach was first used in the current program for 2002-2007. A special interest sale is one that may be held on a date chosen by the Secretary, after consideration of the comments received in response to annual calls for information.

In the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas, which are the two areas of highest resource potential and interest, the draft proposed program would continue the customary practice of scheduling annual areawide lease sales. As a result of the reconfiguration of some planning areas to follow the new administrative lines, some of the areas formerly in the Eastern and Western Gulf Planning Areas are now part of the Central Gulf Planning Area. As part of this draft proposed program, there are no lease sales scheduled in the newly configured Eastern Gulf Planning Area. Under this proposal, the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area would include a portion of the area that was identified for Sale 181 in the 5-year program for 1997-2002. This portion of the previous Sale 181 area is proposed for offering in 2007. The MMS has no intention of offering for leasing areas within 100 miles of the Florida coast that used to be part of the Eastern Gulf Planning Area. The original Sale 181 area is not under Presidential withdrawal and is not subject to congressional moratorium. Subsequent annual Central Gulf sales may consider the area to the south of the original Sale 181 area that is currently under Presidential withdrawal and has been subject to annual congressional moratorium, if both of those restrictions were to be lifted.

There are four planning areas in the Atlantic OCS—North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida. The draft proposed program proposes a “special interest sale” in the Mid-Atlantic in late 2011. The area proposed for consideration is in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area off the coastline of Virginia. In its response to the August Request for Information, Virginia expressed a willingness to continue a dialogue that explores options regarding the energy resources off its coastline. Inclusion of this area in the draft proposed program will provide additional information to the State, the public, industry, and other interested parties about the impacts of exploration off this coast. This will also provide further information to the Secretary to consider whether or not to propose a “special interest sale” in the 2007-2012 program, should the President lift the current withdrawal and should Congress discontinue the annual moratorium. In addition, pursuant to Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, no sale will be proposed until all affected states have the opportunity to comment. There have not been any lease sales in the Atlantic since the early 1980's. At this time, there are no active leases.

Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires receipt of fair market value for OCS oil and gas leases and the rights they convey. The draft proposed program provides for setting minimum bid levels by individual lease sale based on market conditions and for continuing to use a two-phase bid evaluation process.

We request all interested and affected parties to comment on the size, timing, and location of leasing and the procedures for assuring fair market value that are proposed in the Draft Proposed 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012. Respondents who submitted information in response to the August 24, 2005 Federal Register notice requesting comments on preparing the 5-year program for 2007-2012, may wish to reference that information, as appropriate, rather than repeating it in their comments on the draft proposed program. We also invite comments and suggestions on how to proceed with the section 18 analysis for the next draft of the new program, the proposed program.

Section 18(g) authorizes confidential treatment of privileged or proprietary information that is submitted. In order to protect the confidentiality of such information, respondents should include it as an attachment to other comments submitted and mark it appropriately. On request the MMS will treat such information as confidential from the time of its receipt until 5 years after approval of the new leasing program, subject to the standards of the Freedom of Information Act. The MMS will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information, the names of respondents, and comments not containing such information.

In accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), MMS intends to prepare an EIS for the OCS oil and gas 5-year leasing program for 2007-2012 as we specified in the August 2005 notice. As part of the scoping under NEPA, this notice again solicits information regarding issues and alternatives that should be evaluated in the EIS. Comments submitted in response to the August notice need not be re-submitted.

The EIS will address the potential impacts of the adoption of the proposed 5-year program. The MMS requests respondents to focus comments on significant environmental issues attendant to OCS oil and gas leasing and development which should be evaluated in the EIS.

Public Scoping Meetings are planned for the EIS development. Further information will be posted on the 5-year webpage at www.mms.gov and other public notice. Dates and localities for all scoping meetings are being determined. For Atlantic scoping, information can be obtained from Norman Froomer at 703-787-1644 or via e-mail at Norman.Froomer@mms.gov. For Alaska scoping, information can be obtained from the Alaska OCS Region at 1-800-764-2627 or via e-mail at akwebmaster@mms.gov. For Gulf of Mexico scoping, information can be obtained from Dennis Chew at 504-736-2793 or via e-mail at Dennis.Chew@mms.gov.

We are considering possible alternatives to the proposed action, such as offering for lease only those areas offered during the previous 5-year program, or excluding areas currently under congressional moratoria or presidential withdrawal. We will also evaluate the No Action alternative as required by NEPA and its implementing regulations.

For further information about preparation of the EIS, contact: James Bennett, Chief, Branch of Environmental Assessment at the Minerals Management Service, 381 Elden Street, MS 4042, Herndon, Virginia 20170, telephone (703) 787-1660.

The MMS plans to issue the proposed program and draft EIS in mid-summer 2006 for a 90-day comment period. We plan to issue the proposed final program and final EIS in winter 2007. The Secretary may approve the new 5-year program 60 days later to go into effect as of July 1, 2007.

At the February 23 meeting, the National Park Service will solicit ideas from the advisory council about potential dates and formats for upcoming public meetings concerning the General Management Plan, Wilderness Study and EIS; provide an update on the progress of the plan and EIS; and respond to questions about specific provisions of the plan. A public comment period will be held from 11:45 a.m. to 12 p.m.

The purpose of this meeting of the Landmarks Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board is to evaluate nominations of historic properties in order to advise the National Park System Advisory Board as to the qualifications of those properties for National Historic Landmark (NHL) designation. If the Landmarks Committee finds that a nominated property meets criteria for designation as an NHL, it will recommend designation to the National Park System Advisory Board at the Board's meeting in June 2006. The Committee also makes recommendations to the National Park System Advisory Board regarding amendments to existing designations and proposals for withdrawal of designation. The members of the National Landmarks Committee are:

The meeting will be open to the public. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 65, any member of the public may file for consideration by the National Park System Advisory Board and its Landmarks Committee written comments concerning the National Historic Landmarks nominations, amendments to existing designations, or proposals for withdrawal of designation.

Comments should be submitted to John W. Roberts, Acting Chief, National Historic Landmarks Program, National Park Service; 1849 C Street, NW. (2280); Washington, DC 20240.

The National Park System Advisory Board and its Landmarks Committee will consider the following nominations:

• Borax Lake, Clear Lake, CA

• Eames House (Case Study House # 8), Los Angeles, CA

• Coltsville Historic District, Hartford, CT

• Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings House, Cross Creek, FL

• Mud Lake Canal, Flamingo, FL

• Dorchester Academy Boy's Dormitory, Midway, GA

• John and Priscilla Alden Family Sites, Duxbury, MA

• Liberty Memorial, Kansas City, MO

• Northern Nevada Railway Shops and Yard, Ely, NV

• Ernie Pyle House, Albuquerque, NM

• Green-Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, NY

• Carrie Furnaces No. 6 and 7, Boroughs of Rankin, Munhall, and Swissvale, PA

• Pennsylvania State Capitol Complex, Harrisburg, PA

• Heart Mountain, Ralston, WY

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq.

Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and interim and final reports will be available on the Council's Web page at http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov . (You may also verify the status of the meeting at that Web address.)

Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States.

The agenda for this meeting will include: (a) A review of the past meeting and written public comments; (b) remarks from John Walters (invited), Director, Office on National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), John Horton, Associate Deputy Director, ONDCP, and other ONDCP staff, and a discussion of opportunities to coordinate federal work concerned with juveniles and drug policy issues; (c) a review and debriefing of the January 2006 National Conference, “Building on Success: Providing Today's Youth With Opportunities for a Better Tomorrow” and other Council activities; and (d) other business and announcements.

For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register by calling the Juvenile Justice Resource Center at 301-519-6473 (Daryel Dunston), no later than Monday, February 27, 2006 [Note: these are not toll-free telephone numbers.] Additional identification documents may be required. To register online, please go to http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov/meetings.html . Space is limited.

Interested parties may submit written comments by Monday, February 27, 2006, to Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov . The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expects that the public statements presented will not repeat previously submitted statements. Written questions and comments from the public may be invited at this meeting.

This new Standard Review Plan (SRP) section is guidance to the staff reviewers in the Office of NRR for performing safety reviews of quality assurance (QA) programs for design certification, early site permit (ESP) and combined license applications submitted under 10 CFR Part 52, as well as new construction permit and operating license applications submitted under 10 CFR Part 50. The principal purpose of the SRP is to ensure the quality and uniformity of staff safety reviews. It is also the intent of this plan to make information about regulatory matters widely available and to improve communication between the NRC, interested members of the public, and the nuclear power industry, thereby increasing understanding of the review process.

SRP Section 17.5 is based on a combination of the following NRC endorsed guidance: ASME Standard NQA-1, “Quality Assurance Program for Nuclear Facilities” (1994 Edition); Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 3; RG 1.28, “Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Design and Construction),” Revision 3; RG 1.33, “Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation),” Revision 2; Review Standard 002, “Processing Applications for Early Site Permits,” Revision 0; Nuclear Information and Records Management Association, Inc. (NIRMA) Technical Guide (TG) 11-1998, “Authentication of Records and Media;” NIRMA TG 15-1998, “Management of Electronic Records;” NIRMA TG 16-1998, “Software Configuration Management and Quality Assurance;” NIRMA TG 21-1998, Electronic Records Protection and Restoration;” Electric Power Research Institute NP-5652, “Guideline for the Utilization of Commercial—Grade Items in Nuclear Safety-Related Applications (NCIG-07);” SRP Section 17.1, “Quality Assurance During the Design and Construction Phases,” Draft Revision 3; SRP Section 17.2, “Quality Assurance During the Operations Phase,” Draft Revision 3; and SRP Section 17.3, “Quality Assurance Program,” Draft Revision 1. The provisions in 10 CFR 50.69, “Risk-Informed Categorization of Structures, Systems and Components of Nuclear Power Reactors,” regarding QA controls for nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components that perform safety significant functions are included in SRP Section 17.5. The provisions in 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) regarding reporting of defects and noncompliance are included in SRP Section 17.5. A number of NRC approved changes to QA programs that were originally based on existing SRP Sections 17.1, 17.2, and 17.3 that are considered by the NRC to be generic in nature are also included in SRP Section 17.5. The independent review criteria in existing SRP Section 13.4, “Operational Review,” have been relocated to SRP Section 17.5.

SRP Section 17.5 is to be used by the staff for guidance for the review of new QA programs. SRP Section 17.5 does not replace existing SRP Sections 13.4, 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3. These existing SRPs continue to be applicable to QA programs as previously approved by the NRC.