Notices. Notice to advise the public of our intent to provide a 45-day extension of the public comment period and a public hearing meeting for the Realistic Bomber Initiative Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

12,770 words·~58 min read·/register/2005/12/27/05-24494·

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

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period and a Public Hearing Meeting for the Realistic Bomber Initiative Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DOD. ACTION: Notice to advise the public of our intent to provide a 45-day extension of the public comment period and a public hearing meeting for the Realistic Bomber Initiative Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)parts 1500-1508), and Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process as implemented by 32 CFR part 989, the United States Air Force (Air Force) is issuing this notice to advise the public of our intent to provide a 45-day extension of the public comment period for the Realistic Bomber Initiative Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The original comment period was scheduled to close on 3 Jan 2006 ( **Federal Register** : November 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 222)] [Notices] [Page 69967-69968]. The comment period now ends on 17 February 2006. DATES: A public hearing meeting will also be held during the extended comment period at Lubbock, High School Auditorium, 2004 19th Street, Lubbock Texas, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m on Saturday 28 January 2006. The meeting will begin with an open house with displays, followed at 2 p.m. by an Air Force presentation on the analysis, and the formal public hearing comment session. The meeting will end by 5 P.M. or when the last comment is recorded. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please submit written comments to Ms. Sheryl Parker, RBTI SEIS Project Manager, HQ ACC/A7ZP, P.O. Box 65399, Langley AFB, VA 23665-5399. For additional information, please contact the 7th Bomb Wing Public Affairs Office, Dyess AFB, at 1-325-696-2861 or 1-877-843-9280. Lawrence Shade, Acting, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E5-7832 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for a Permit Application for a Proposed Marine Terminal Expansion at Piers D, E and F in the Middle Harbor District of the Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, DoD. ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent (NOI). SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is considering an application for Section 404 and Section 10 permits to conduct dredge and fill activities to redevelop and consolidate two existing container terminals for the construction of a 342-acre marine terminal including redevelopment of 294 acres of existing land and the placement of dredged material in open water to create 48 acres of new land. The primary reason for the revised notice of intent is because the proposed terminal expansion project has been modified to utilize additional existing land to reduce the amount of fill in open water by approximately 20 acres. The primary Federal concern is the dredging and discharging of materials within waters of the Unites States and potential significant impacts to the human environment. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Corps is requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)prior to consideration of any permit action. The Corps may ultimately make a determination to permit or deny the above project, or permit or deny modified versions of the above project. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Port of Long Beach will serve as Lead Agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report

(EIR)for its consideration of development approvals within its jurisdiction. The Corps and the Port of Long Beach have agreed to jointly prepare a Draft EIS/EIR in order to optimize efficiency and avoid duplication. The Draft EIS/EIR is intended to be sufficient in scope to address both the Federal and the State and local requirements and environmental issues concerning the proposed activities and permit approvals. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments and questions regarding scoping of the Draft EIS/EIR may be addressed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Branch, ATTN: File Number 2004-01053-AOA, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, California 90053-2325. Comments or questions can also be sent to Patricia Shoemaker, Port of Long Beach, P.O. Box 570, Long Beach, CA 90801-0570. Phone messages or questions should be directed to Dr. Aaron O. Allen at 805-585-2148. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. *Project Site:* The proposed project is located in the southern portion of the Port of Long Beach, California. The proposed dredge and fill activities would take place at Piers D, E and F and would involve redeveloping portions of Pier D and reconfiguring existing wharves and berths at Piers E and F to create a single 342-acre marine terminal to accommodate increasing cargo volumes being produced by the new generation of larger container vessels. 2. *Proposed Action:* The project applicant, the Port of Long Beach, proposes to permanently impact approximately 48 acres of open-water habitat for dredge and fill activities and to rehabilitate 294 acres of existing terminal area at Piers D, E and F for the construction of a new 342-acre container terminal in the Port of Long Beach. The proposed project would reconfigure existing wharves and berths at Piers D, E and F into one 4,250-foot-long wharf with four deep-water berths, a container terminal yard that includes 48 acres of new land and 294 acres of rehabilitated land and an intermodal rail yard. The proposed project would include dredge and fill activities, new wharf construction and terminal expansion on adjacent areas that consist of existing and newly created land. The specific components of the proposed project would include: dredging to deepen Slip Number Three to −55 Mean Lower Low Water

(MLLW)and widen Slip 3 by 110 feet to accommodate four deep-water berths; filling the 22-acre Slip One and approximately 33 acres of the East Basin between Pier E and F to create additional terminal area; fill existing submerged land with suitable dredge and excavated material from Slip 3 and Berth F201; wharf and container yard redevelopment; new wharf construction; and expansion of terminal backland capacity. The proposed project would generate approximately 680,000 cubic yards of dredged material and excavated material generated by the project would be approximately 1,290,000 cubic yards. Approximately 6,730,000 cubic yards of imported fill from sources both inside and outside the Harbor District would be required to complete all the proposed discharges of dredged and fill material in waters of the United States to create approximately 48 acres of new land. The proposed construction and rehabilitation activities would be completed over a 10-year period. All of the above construction activities would include the demolition of existing terminal facilities as well as existing buildings and infrastructure in both open water and upland areas. 3. *Issues:* There are several potential environmental issues that will be addressed in the Draft EIS/EIR. Additional issues may be identified during the scoping process. Issues initially identified as potentially significant include: 1. Geological issues including dredging and stabilization of fill areas. 2. Potential impacts to marine biological resources. 3. Impacts to air quality. 4. Traffic, including navigation issues, and transportation related impacts. 5. Potential noise impacts. 6. Impacts to public utilities and services. 7. Impact to aesthetic resources. 8. Potential impacts on public health and safety. 9. Cumulative impacts. 4. *Alternatives:* Several alternatives are being considered for the proposed marine terminal. These alternatives will be further formulated and developed during the scoping process and an appropriate range of alternatives, including the no Federal action alternative, will be considered in the Draft EIS/EIR. 5. *Scoping Process:* A previous Notice of Intent for the original project design was published in the **Federal Register** on August 31, 2004. A public meeting will be held to receive public comment and assess public concerns regarding the appropriate scope and preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR. Participation in the public meeting by Federal, State and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is encouraged. The Corps of Engineers will also be consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Additionally, the EIS/EIR will assess the consistency of the proposed Action with the Coastal Zone Management Act and potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The public scoping meeting for the Draft EIS/EIR will be held at the City Hall Council Chambers in Long Beach on January, 30, 2006, and will start at 7 p.m. Written comments will be accepted until February 13, 2006. 6. *Availability of the Draft EIS:* The Draft EIS/EIR is expected to be published and circulated in July of 2006, and a Public Hearing will be held after its publication. Dated: December 14, 2005. Alex C. Dornstauder, Colonel, U.S. Army, District Engineer. [FR Doc. E5-7870 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8015-5] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and the American Bottom Conservancy (collectively “Plaintiffs”): *Sierra Club, et al.* v. *Johnson* , No. 05-C-4425 (N.D. IL). On August 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that they had submitted a petition to EPA seeking an objection to a Clean Air Act Title V permit proposed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the Onyx Environmental Services' waste incinerator (“Onyx Incinerator”) in Sauget, Illinois, and that the Administrator failed to perform his nondiscretionary duty to respond to the petition within sixty days of the date it was filed. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the petition by February 1, 2006, and the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their suit with prejudice. In addition, EPA has agreed to pay the plaintiffs a specified amount in settlement of the plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees in this matter. DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by January 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2005-0529, online at *http://www.regulations.gov* (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to *oei.docket@epa.gov* ; mailed to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Versace, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:

(202)564-0219; fax number

(202)564-5603; e-mail address: *versace.paul@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking a response to a petition to object to a Title V permit proposed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to the Onyx Environmental Services' waste incinerator in Sauget, Illinois. Under the proposed decree, the parties would seek to stay the pending litigation, and the plaintiffs would agree to dismiss the lawsuit if the Administrator issues a response to the petition by February 1, 2006. The consent decree does not require the Administrator to respond to the petition in any particular way. If the consent decree becomes final and the Administrator issues a response to the petition by February 1, 2006, Plaintiffs will dismiss the case and EPA will pay the plaintiffs a specified amount in settlement of their 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. II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How Can I Get A Copy Of the Consent Decree? Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2005-0529 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 *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. B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? 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. Dated: December 20, 2005. Richard B. Ossias, Associate General Counsel. [FR Doc. E5-7853 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8015-6] Science Advisory Board

(SAB)Staff Office; Notification of a Teleconference of the Arsenic Review Panel AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board

(SAB)Staff Office announces an upcoming public teleconference of the SAB Arsenic Review Panel to discuss its draft report, *Advisory on EPA's Assessments of Carcinogenic Effects of Organic and Inorganic Arsenic.* DATES: The date for the teleconference is January 24, 2006, from 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to obtain the teleconference call-in number and access code to participate in the teleconference may contact Mr. Thomas O. Miller, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by telephone at

(202)343-9982 or e-mail at *miller.tom@epa.gov.* General information about the SAB, as well as any updates concerning the teleconference announced in this notice, may be found on the SAB Web Site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the SAB Arsenic Review Panel will hold a public teleconference on the date and time provided above. The purpose of this teleconference is for the Panel members to discuss the draft report, *Advisory on EPA's Assessments of Carcinogenic Effects of Organic and Inorganic Arsenic* . Background on this issue was provided in two **Federal Register** notices published on February 23, 2005 (70 FR 8803-8804) and July 26, 2005 (70 FR 43144-43145). In addition, the teleconference of the Panel originally scheduled for December 5, 2005 was postponed and noticed in the **Federal Register** on December, 2, 2005 (70 FR 72116). Human exposure to arsenic compounds can occur through various environmental media by their use as pesticides ( *e.g.* , dessicants/defoliants, wood preservatives) or from industrial wastes. EPA regulates environmental exposure to arsenic compounds pursuant to requirements of several laws ( *e.g.* , the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; and the Food Quality Protection Act). EPA asked the SAB to provide advice on scientific issues underlying the Agency's assessments of the carcinogenic potential of arsenic compounds. In response to EPA's request, the SAB Staff Office formed an *Ad Hoc* Panel to review relevant background data and to consider the underlying scientific questions. The Panel drafted an advisory report to respond to the EPA charge. That draft report will be the focus of the January 24, 2006 public teleconference announced in this notice. *Availability of Meeting Materials:* A roster of the Panel members, the teleconference agenda, the charge to the Panel, and the Panel's draft report will be posted on the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/arsenic_review_panel.htm,* prior to the teleconference. EPA's *Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic* and related background information on inorganic arsenic may be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/sab.* The technical contact for the above information on inorganic arsenic is Dr. Elizabeth Doyle,

(202)566-0056, of the Office of Water. EPA's assessment for organic arsenic, *Science Issue Paper: Cancer Mode of Action of Cacodylic Acid (Dimethylarsinic Acid, DMA* V *and Recommendations for Dose Response Extrapolation* and other related background information on organic arsenic may be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/cacodylic_acid.* The technical contact for the above information on organic arsenic is Dr. Anna Lowit,

(703)308-4135, of the Office of Pesticide Programs. *Procedures for Providing Public Input:* Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information for the SAB Panel to consider during the advisory process. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three minutes per speaker with no more than a total of fifteen minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the DFO, contact information provided above, in writing via e-mail by January 17, 2006, to be placed on the public speaker list for the teleconference. Written Statements: Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by January 17, 2006, so that the information may be made available to the Panel for their consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). *Meeting Accommodations:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO, contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the DFO, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: December 20, 2005. Richard Albores, Acting Director EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E5-7850 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0013; FRL-8015-4] Notice of Availability of a Petition for Exemption From EPCRA and CERCLA Reporting Requirements for Ammonia From Poultry Operations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of data availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a Petition for Exemption from EPCRA and CERCLA Reporting Requirements for Ammonia from Poultry Operations that was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on August 5, 2005 by the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association as nonprofit member organizations that represent the majority of broiler and turkey producers across the country. This document is being made available so that the public will have the opportunity to provide relevant data regarding this petition. EPA, in accordance with its mission to protect human health and the environment, will consider the impacts of human health and the environment in its decision whether to grant or deny this petition. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0013, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *superfund.docket@epa.gov.* • Fax: 202-566-0224. • Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5202T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov.* The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* “For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit III.A of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is

(202)566-0276). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Interested Entities Type of entity Examples of interested entities Industry Poultry Industry, Owners/Operators of animal production operations. Environmental and Citizen Groups Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, Local Citizen Groups. State/Local/Tribal Government State and Tribal Emergency Response Commissions, and Local Emergency Planning Committees. Federal National Response Center, Regional Environmental Protection Agency Offices. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in this petition. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be interested in this petition. Other types of entities not listed in the table may also be interested. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation related to your comments. II. Background The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 103(a) requires that any person in charge of a facility notify the National Response Center (NRC), as soon as he has knowledge, of the release of a hazardous substance from that facility in quantities equal to or greater than those determined under section 102(b) of CERCLA. Those quantities are called the Reportable Quantities or RQs. Similarly, EPCRA section 304(a) requires that the local emergency planning committee

(LEPC)for any area likely to be affected, and the State emergency response commission

(SERC)of any State likely to be affected by the release of an extremely hazardous substance listed under EPCRA Section 302 also be notified. Neither CERCLA nor EPCRA limit the industry or commercial sectors that need to report; therefore any facility releasing more than an RQ must report. With respect to poultry operations, the CERCLA hazardous and EPCRA extremely hazardous substance most likely to trigger an RQ is ammonia at 100 pounds per 24 hours. Ammonia may be used at a farm as fertilizer and thus, is stored in tanks and can be released. However, at poultry operations, another likely release source of ammonia is from the barns that contain poultry litter (bedding material that is combined with deposited manure). Hydrogen sulfide is also a CERCLA hazardous and EPCRA extremely hazardous substance, with an RQ at 100 pounds per 24 hours, which may be emitted from animal agricultural operations. However, the petition is silent on hydrogen sulfide. On August 5, 2005, the Agency received the subject petition titled, “Petition for Exemption from EPCRA and CERCLA Reporting Requirements for Ammonia from Poultry Operations.” III. Summary of Today's Action A. What Is the Agency Asking From the Public? The Agency believes the petition raises important issues that require a scientifically-sound basis in order to make a reasoned decision. The Agency's Office of Science Policy includes on its Web site, *http://www.epa.gov/osp/science.htm* , a statement that, “[s]cience provides the foundation for credible decision-making. Only through adequate knowledge about the risks to human health and ecosystems, and innovative solutions to prevent pollution and reduce risk, can we continue to enjoy a high quality life. With a better understanding of environmental risks to people and ecosystems, EPA can target the hazards that pose the greatest risks and anticipate environmental problems before they reach a critical level.” It is appropriate, based on this policy, that the Agency seeks relevant data so that it can make a science-based decision regarding this petition. As a result the Agency is requesting the public to submit any relevant data on the impact of ammonia emissions on public health and the environment from poultry operations. The Agency is also interested in hearing from State Emergency Planning Commissions

(SERC)and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) about the usefulness of release reports that are required under EPCRA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 355—Emergency Planning and Notification). B. What Efforts Are the Agency Currently Pursuing To Evaluate Emissions From Poultry Operations? Currently, the Agency does not have any reliable data regarding emissions from the poultry operations industry that it could use to properly evaluate this petition; however, the Agency is currently evaluating applications from the animal agricultural industry for participation in the Agency's Animal Feeding Operations (AFO)/Consent Agreement and Final Order

(CAFO)that will enable the Agency to collect emissions data from the industry. On January 31, 2005, EPA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 4958) offering animal agricultural operations an opportunity to sign the voluntary Consent Agreement, which among other things establishes a monitoring study for emissions at such operations. The need for the monitoring study was based on a National Academy of Sciences

(NAS)review and evaluation of EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's scientific basis for estimating emissions of various air pollutants from AFOs. The NAS issued a final report in February, 2003 concluding that scientifically sound and practical protocols for measuring air emissions from AFOs needed to be developed. The NAS also found that existing methodologies for estimating air emissions from AFOs are generally inadequate because of the limited data and site specific factors on which they are based. In response to the 2003 NAS report, EPA began revising the conceptual enforcement agreement to specifically address the data and emission-estimating methodology needs, thus beginning to address the needs cited by the NAS, and determining AFO regulatory responsibility under the CAA, CERCLA, and EPCRA. This resulting monitoring study will lead to the development of methodologies for estimating emissions from AFOs and will allow Respondents to determine and comply with their regulatory responsibilities under the CAA, CERCLA, and EPCRA. Once applicable emission-estimating methodologies have been published by EPA, the liability release in the proposed Agreement is contingent on the Respondent certifying that it is in compliance with all relevant requirements of the CAA, CERCLA, and EPCRA. In return, Respondents receive a release and covenant not to sue for the specific violations identified by applying the relevant emissions-estimating methodologies as long as the participating animal agricultural operations comply with all of their obligations under the Agreement. The AFO Air Compliance Agreement is an important part of EPA's strategy to address air emissions from AFOs. In addition to resolving the compliance status of AFOs under the relevant statutes, it will provide critical data that will allow EPA to quantify emissions coming from AFOs (including poultry operations) and, if necessary, to identify appropriate regulatory and nonregulatory responses for controlling those emissions. C. What Is the Agency Intending To Do With the Scientific Data Received From the Public? The Agency intends to consider the scientific data that it receives from the public in its evaluation of this petition. Once the Agency has made its decision it will issue a notice that provides its rationale to either grant or deny the petition. Dated: December 20, 2005. Thomas P. Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. E5-7869 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. SUMMARY: Background Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the OMB 83-Is and supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer -- Michelle Long -- Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202-452-3829). OMB Desk Officer -- Mark Menchik -- Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or e-mail to *mmenchik@omb.eop.gov* . Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, without revision, of the following reports: *1. Report title:* Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Loans Secured by Real Estate Located in Flood Hazard Areas Pursuant to Section 208.25 of Regulation H. *Agency form number:* Reg H-2. *OMB control number:* 7100-0280. *Frequency:* Event-generated. *Reporters:* State member banks. *Annual reporting hours:* 122,413 hours. *Estimated average hours per response:* Notice of special flood hazards to borrowers and servicers, 0.08 hours; notice to the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)of servicer, 0.08 hours; notice to FEMA of change of servicer, 0.08 hours; and retention of standard FEMA form, 0.04 hours. *Number of respondents:* 910. *General description of report:* This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1)). Because the Federal Reserve does not collect any of FEMA forms this information collection is not given confidential treatment. However, should any of these records come into the possession of the Federal Reserve, such information may be protected from disclosure by exemption 4 and 6 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(6)). *Abstract:* Regulation H requires state member banks to notify a borrower and servicer when loans secured by real estate are determined to be in a special flood hazard area and notify them whether flood insurance is available; notify FEMA of the identity of, and any change of, the servicer of a loan secured by real estate in a special flood hazard area; and retain a completed copy of the Standard Flood Hazard Determination Form used to determine whether property securing a loan is in a special flood hazard area. *2. Report title:* Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with Regulation BB (Community Reinvestment Act). *Agency form number:* Reg BB. *OMB control number:* 7100-0197. *Frequency:* Annually. *Reporters:* State member banks. *Annual reporting hours:* 85,234 hours. *Estimated average hours per response:* Recordkeeping Requirement, small business and small farm loan register, 219 hours. Optional Recordkeeping Requirements, consumer loan data, 326 hours; other loan data, 25 hours. Reporting Requirements, assessment area delineation, 2 hours; small business and small farm loan data, 8 hours; community development loan data, 13 hours; and HMDA out of MSA loan data, 253 hours. Optional Reporting Requirements, data on lending by a consortium or third party, 17 hours; affiliate lending data, 38 hours; strategic plan, 275 hours; and request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank, 4 hours. Disclosure Requirement, public file, 10 hours. *Number of respondents:* 914. *Abstract:* This submission covers an extension of the Federal Reserve's currently approved information collections in their CRA regulations (12 CFR part 228). The submission involves no change to the regulation or to the information collection. The Federal Reserve System needs the information collected to fulfill their obligations under the CRA (12 U.S.C. 2901 *et seq.* ) to evaluate and assign ratings to the performance of institutions, in connection with helping to meet the credit needs of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The Federal Reserve System uses the information in the examination process and in evaluating applications for mergers, branches, and certain other corporate activities. Financial institutions maintain and provide the information to the Federal Reserve System. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 21, 2005. Jennifer J. Johnson Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E5-7836 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at *http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 20, 2006. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis** (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: *1. FMS Bancorp, Inc.* , Poplar Bluff, Missouri; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of First Missouri State Bank of Cape County, Cape Girardeau, Missouri (in organization). **B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis** (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291: *1. BlackRidge Financial, Inc.* , Fargo, North Dakota; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Valley Bancshares, Inc., Nisswa, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Lakewood Bank, N.A., Baxter, Minnesota. In addition, Applicant will retain its indirect 17.11 percent ownership in Union Bancshares, Inc., Fargo, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly retain ownership in Union State Bank of Fargo, Fargo, North Dakota. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 21, 2005. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E5-7837 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Establishment of a Transaction Fee for transportation services provided for the GSA, Office of Global Supply (FL). AGENCY: Federal Acquisition Service, GSA. ACTION: Notice requesting comments; Extension of comment period. SUMMARY: GSA is extending the comment period ten days for its proposal to change the Freight Management Program (FMP), Standard Tender of Service (STOS), to establish a transaction fee for transportation services provided to the Eastern Distribution Center (EDC), Burlington, NJ, Western Distribution Center (WDC), French Camp, CA, and the National Industries for the Blind

(NIB)and National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH). The proposed transaction fee of 4% of the total transportation charges will be deducted from transportation service provider

(TSP)invoices prior to payment via the GSA Transportation Management Services Solution (TMSS). The notice was previously published in the **Federal Register** at 70 FR 73248, December 9, 2005. DATES: The comment period has been extended. Please submit comments by January 23, 2005. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service, Travel and Transportation Management Division (FBL), 1901 South Bell Street, Crystal Mall Building 4, Room 812, Arlington, VA 22202, Attention: Ms. Mary Anne Sykes (Re: **Federal Register** comments) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Anne Sykes, Transportation Programs Branch, by telephone at 703 605-2889 or by e-mail at *transportation.programs@gsa.gov* . Dated: December 20, 2005. Tauna T. Delmonico, Director, Travel and Transportation Management Division (FBL), GSA. [FR Doc. E5-7831 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-89-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-06-06AO] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-4766 and send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to *omb@cdc.gov* . Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(OSH)Information to a Sample from the Small Business Wood Pallet Industry—NEW—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Section 501, enables CDC/NIOSH to carry out research relevant to the health and safety of workers. The goal of this project is to determine whether receipt of a NIOSH informational manual about occupational safety and health

(OSH)concerns specific to pallet manufacturing and recycling will motivate owners or managers to take actions resulting in a safer workplace. The theoretical basis of the study follows the Transtheoretical Model

(TTM)of Prochaska and DiClemente [1984]. This model states that change is defined by 5 stages:

(1)Pre-contemplation—people are unaware of problems and are not thinking seriously about changing within the next 6 months,

(2)contemplation—the stage where people become aware that a problem exists and intend to take action within the next 6 months,

(3)preparation—investigating options and intending to take action in the next 30 days,

(4)action—people institute environmental changes and change their overt behavior, and

(5)maintenance—people continue the gains obtained during the action stage for longer than 6 months. Small business entrepreneurship is a vital component of the U.S. economy. OSH activities, including research, regulation, enforcement, and intervention historically have not focused on small businesses despite their predominance and relatively large numbers of employees overall. Few small business establishments provide on-site occupational health units, medical screening tests, pre-placement physicals, or employ or use industrial hygiene or safety personnel/consultants. As a consequence, prevention of occupational injury and illness is often difficult in small business establishments because they generally have few safety and health resources, do not hire staff devoted to safety and health activities, and often lack the ability to identify occupational hazards and conduct surveillance. The pallet manufacturing industry has higher injury rates than general industry. The incidence rate for non-fatal injuries in the wood pallet and skid (SIC 2448) manufacturing industry was 226% greater than that for general industry. The types of injuries sustained at wood pallet manufacturers and their incidence rates [2002] compared to general industry included amputations (2220% higher, *i.e* , over 20 times greater), cuts and punctures (378% higher), fractures (237% higher), bruises (221% higher) sprains and strains (133% higher) and back pain (305% higher). Through this study, NIOSH will evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of providing carefully constructed OSH information to one segment of small business pallet makers. The informational manual will be divided into eight chapters targeting specific hazards relevant to pallet work and will provide the owners/managers with suggestions for controlling those hazards. Chapters were selected based on prior NIOSH site visits to a sample of pallet makers and in consultation with the National Wood Pallet and Container Association. The chapters include: an introduction to OSH, developing a site-specific safety program, controlling noise, improving ventilation, saw safety, forklift safety, preventing build up of carbon monoxide, and prevention of musculoskeletal injury through ergonomics. This project will utilize two groups—a treatment group and a control group—in a pre-post design. One hundred eighty pallet companies will be randomly selected and assigned to six groups from a list of small pallet businesses in the United States that was provided by a market research firm. Both groups will participate in a baseline survey conducted by telephone. The treatment group will then receive the NIOSH informational manual by mail and the control group will not receive the manual until the conclusion of the study. Five months after the mailing, both groups will participate in a follow-up telephone survey designed to assess whether receipt and use of the material encouraged owners/managers to contemplate, plan, or initiate OSH changes at their facility. The questionnaire will determine whether owners/managers have progressed from baseline along the stage of change continuum because of receipt and use of the NIOSH material, or if some other factor is influencing their safety and health actions. It is possible that improvements in OSH may occur due to other influences and not from the informational manual. For example, it is possible that some event will occur that will make the entire industry more aware of OSH. Use of a similar control group will help in this determination. Data collection will occur within a one year period. However, the entire NIOSH study will occur over a three-year period. There will be no cost to respondents except their time to participate in the telephone survey. Estimated Annualized Burden Table Respondents Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Total burden (in hours) Treatment group-initial survey 90 1 12/60 18 Treatment group-Second survey 90 1 15/60 22.5 Control group-initial survey 90 1 12/60 18 Control group-second survey 90 1 9/60 13.5 Total 72 Dated: December 16, 2005. Joan F. Karr, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7861 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-06-06AN] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Proposed Project Understanding the Determinants of Health Disparities within the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP)—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCDDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description The purpose of the project is to better understand the determinants of disparities in screening, follow-up, and diagnosis rates among white, black, and Hispanic patients served by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Specifically, the project will examine what structural and system factors contribute to these disparities. Using key informant interviews with staff of selected NBCCEDPs and with local provider representatives (within selected NBCCEDP locations) who are involved in identifying, scheduling, or securing diagnostic and treatment resources for program clients, the project will answer two research questions:

(1)How do NBCCEDP programs with a low percentage of disparities and programs with a high percentage of disparities differ in their completeness of follow-up diagnosis with white, black, and Hispanic women for both breast and cervical cancer, and

(2)How do NBCCEDP programs with a low percentage of disparities and programs with a high percentage of disparities differ in their timing between screening and diagnosis with white, black, and Hispanic women for both breast and cervical cancer. In addition, recommendations that may serve to enhance technical assistance efforts to NBCCEDPs and local providers will be developed. A total of 80 phone key informant interviews will be conducted across 8 program sites with 10 interviews being conducted per program. NBCCEDP programs were selected utilizing a systematic process based on

(1)Measures of interest (completeness of follow-up diagnosis for both breast and cervical cancer and time between screening and diagnosis for both breast and cervical cancer;

(2)racial/ethnic and age segmentation of women (i.e. comparing white vs. black and white vs. Hispanic; breast cancer age range: 18-64, cervical cancer age range: 50-64);

(3)percent of minorities served by the program; and

(4)disparate screening, follow-up, and diagnosis rates. NBCCEDP Program Directors of the 8 chosen programs were contacted to obtain the names and contact information for the individuals who will be the key informants within the NBCCEDP programs. The data will be collected via telephone interviews with these informants who include: two high-level management staff (including the program director) with knowledge of structural and system factors that may contribute to the disparate rates, four mid-level staff within the BCCEDP program whose work involves interactions within the clinics who may have insight on clinical and staff factors that may contribute to the disparate rates, and four local-level staff within the BCCEDP program whose work involves working directly with patients and may have insight on patient factors that may contribute to the disparate screening, follow-up, and diagnosis rates among white, black, and Hispanic patients. Interviews will last approximately forty-five minutes each. There are no costs to respondents except other than their time to participate in the survey. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Respondents Number of Respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hrs.) Total burden (in hours) High-Level Management Staff 16 1 1.5 11 Mid-level Staff 32 1 1.5 21 Local-level Staff 32 1 1.5 21 Total 80 53 Dated: December 19, 2005. Joan F. Karr, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7862 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-06-06AP] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(SARS)can be spread when people produce infectious aerosols by coughing or sneezing. Aerosol transmission of infectious diseases is especially important to health-care workers and emergency responders, who face a much greater risk of exposure to these hazards than does the general public. Cough-generated aerosols are of particular concern because coughing is one of the most common symptoms of respiratory infections. However, substantial gaps exist in our understanding about the generation of aerosols during coughing. This lack of information hampers the ability of health scientists to model and predict the generation of infectious aerosols by coughing and to understand whether or not cough-generated aerosols are likely to be an important means of transmission of particular diseases. The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the production of aerosols by coughing. The results of this research will give scientists and health professionals' greater insight into the airborne transmission of disease and allow them to better assess the potential effectiveness of preventive measures. The first part of this study will measure the quantity and size distribution of aerosol produced during human coughs. To accomplish this, volunteers will cough into a spirometer, which is a commonly used piston-like medical device that measures the volume of air exhaled by a patient. After the volunteer coughs into the spirometer, the air in the spirometer will be drawn into a commercial aerosol measurement device. These experiments will also provide information on how much cough aerosols vary over time for individuals and how much aerosol generation varies between individuals. The second part of this study will determine how effectively surgical masks and N95 respirators block cough-generated aerosols. N95 respirators are dust masks that are certified to filter out at least 95% of airborne material during normal breathing. N95 respirators are known to be more effective than surgical masks at filtering out airborne particles during inhalation, but it is not known whether masks or respirators are more effective at blocking cough-generated aerosols. For this work, masks and respirators will be placed in a special holder with a disposable mouthpiece, and human subjects will cough into the mouthpiece and through the mask. The aerosol produced by each subject will be analyzed before and after flowing through the mask. These experiments will determine how effective each mask or respirator is at preventing the release of cough-generated aerosols. Volunteers from part 1 may also participate in part 2 if they wish. There will be no costs to study participants other than their time. Estimates of Annualized Burden Respondents Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Total burden (in hours) Part 1 participants 20 5 1.5 150 Part 2 participants 120 1 1.5 180 Total 330 Dated: December 19, 2005. Joan F. Karr, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7863 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services The National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) is soliciting nominations for possible membership on the Board of Scientific Counselors. This Board provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the Director, NCEH/ATSDR, regarding program goals, objectives, strategies, and priorities in fulfillment of the agencies' mission to protect and promote people's health. The Board provides advice and guidance to help NCEH/ATSDR work more efficiently and effectively with its various constituents and to fulfill its mission in protecting America's health. Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the Board's objectives. Nominees will be selected from experts having experience in preventing human diseases and disabilities caused by environmental conditions. Experts in the disciplines of toxicology, epidemiology, environmental or occupational medicine, behavioral science, risk assessment, exposure assessment, and experts in public health and other related disciplines will be considered. Consideration is given to representation from diverse geographic areas, gender, ethnic and minority groups, and the disabled. Members may be invited to serve up to four-year terms. Nominees must be U.S. citizens. The following information must be submitted for each candidate: Name, affiliation, address, telephone number, and current curriculum vitae. E-mail addresses are requested if available. Nominations should be sent, in writing, and postmarked by January 9, 2006 to: Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., (MS-E28), Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone and facsimile submissions cannot be accepted. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: December 19, 2005. Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [FR Doc. E5-7859 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees at Chapman Valve Co., Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees at the Chapman Valve Co., in Indian Orchard, Massachusetts, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows: *Facility:* Chapman Valve Co. *Location:* Indian Orchard, Massachusetts. *Job Titles and/or Job Duties:* Various. *Period of Employment:* From 1948 through 1949 and from 1991-1995 (DOE Remediation). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV* . Dated: December 20, 2005. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7809 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees at the Linde Ceramics Plant, in Tonawanda, New York as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort

(SEC)under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On December 8, 2005, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC: Atomic weapons employees who worked at the Linde Ceramic Plant from October 1, 1942, through October 31, 1947, and who were employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, either solely under this employment or in combination with work days of employment occurring within the parameters (excluding aggregate work day requirements) established for other classes of employees included in the SEC. This designation will become effective on January 7, 2006, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to the SEC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV* . Dated: December 20, 2005. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7810 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-17-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Destrehan Street Facility, in St. Louis, Missouri, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort

(SEC)under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On October 14, 2005, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC: Department of Energy

(DOE)employees or DOE contractor or subcontractor employees who worked in the Uranium Division at the Destrehan Street Facility of Mallinckrodt Chemical Works from 1949 to 1957 and who were employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters (excluding aggregate work day requirements) established for other classes of employees included in the SEC. This designation became effective on November 13, 2005, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384 *l* (14)(C). Hence, beginning on November 13, 2005, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the Special Exposure Cohort. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV* . Dated: December 20, 2005. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7811 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Employment and Training Administration Determination Concerning a Class of Employees Considered for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)gives notice of a decision that a class of employees at the National Bureau of Standards, Van Ness Street, Washington, DC, do not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort

(SEC)under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). On December 8, 2005, the Secretary of HHS determined, based on the decision by the Department of Energy to remove the site from the list of covered facilities, that the following class of employees do not meet the statutory requirements for covered employees under EEOICPA and thus do not meet the statutory requirements for the SEC: Physicists who worked in Building #2 at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Van Ness Street, Washington, DC, from 1943 through 1952. This determination may be subject to an administrative review within HHS, pursuant to 42 CFR 83.16(b). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to *OCAS@CDC.GOV* . Dated: December 20, 2005. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7807 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-17-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Meetings The Health Department Subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR): Teleconference Meeting. In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), CDC, NCEH/ATSDR announces the following subcommittee teleconference meeting: *Name:* Health Department Subcommittee (HDS). *Times and Dates:* 1 p.m.-2:30 p.m., January 12, 2005 *Place:* Century Center, 1825 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30345. *Status:* Open to the public, teleconference access limited only by availability of telephone ports. *Purpose:* Under the charge of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NCEH/ATSDR the HDS will provide the BSC, NCEH/ATSDR with advice and recommendations on local and state health department issues and concerns that pertain to the mandates and mission of NCEH/ATSDR. *Matters To Be Discussed:* The meeting agenda will include a review of the Health Department Charge; a review of the Top Five Priority Issues of the HDS and how to proceed on the next top priority issues; a discussion on the formulation of recommendations on the Environmental Health Workforce; a discussion on issues the BSC would like addressed; and a discussion to establish the regularity and timing of the HDS face-to-face and teleconference meetings. Items are subject to change as priorities dictate. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This teleconference meeting is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. e.s.t. To participate during the Public Comment period (2-2:10 p.m.), dial

(877)315-6535, conference code 383520. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Individuals interested in attending the meeting, contact Sandra Malcom, Committee Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, M/S E-28, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; telephone 404/498-0003, fax 404/498-0059; e-mail: *smalcom@cdc.gov* . The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: December 27, 2005. Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E5-7868 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2005N-0350] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Reclassification Petitions for Medical Devices AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. Reclassification Petitions for Medical Devices—(OMB Control Number 0910-0138)—Extension FDA has the responsibility under sections 513(e), 513(f), 514(b), 515(b), and 520(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(e), 360c(f), 360d(b), 360e(b), and 360j(l)) and part 860 (21 CFR part 860), subpart C, to collect data and information contained in reclassification petitions. The reclassification provisions of the act allow any person to petition for reclassification of a device from any one of the three classes (I, II, and III) to another class. The reclassification content regulation (§ 860.123) requires the submission of sufficient, valid scientific evidence demonstrating that the proposed classification will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. The reclassification provisions of the act serve primarily as a vehicle for manufacturers to seek reclassification from a higher to a lower class, thereby reducing the regulatory requirements applicable to a particular device. The reclassification petitions requesting classification from class III to class II or class I, if approved, provide an alternative route to the market in lieu of premarket approval for class III devices. Respondents are device manufacturers seeking reclassification. In the **Federal Register** of September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54392), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received. **Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden** 1 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 860.123 6 1 6 500 3,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. Based on current trends and actual reclassification petitions received, FDA anticipates that six petitions will be submitted each year. The time required to prepare and submit a reclassification petition, including the time needed to assemble supporting data, averages 500 hours per petition. This average is based upon estimates by FDA administrative and technical staff that are familiar with the requirements for submission of a reclassification petition, have consulted and advised manufacturers on these requirements, and have reviewed the documentation submitted. Dated: December 8, 2005. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E5-7804 Filed 12-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2005D-0481] Draft Guidance for Industry: Lead in Candy Likely To Be Consumed Frequently by Small Children: Recommended Maximum Level and Enforcement Policy; Draft Supporting Document: Supporting Document for Recommended Maximum Level for Lead in Candy Likely To Be Consumed Frequently by Small Children; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Lead in Candy Likely To Be Consumed Frequently by Small Children: Recommended Maximum Level and Enforcement Policy.” This draft guidance provides a recommended maximum lead level in candy likely to be consumed frequently by small children. FDA considers the recommended maximum level to be protective of human health and to be achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices in the production of candy and candy ingredients. The agency is also announcing the availability of a draft supporting document entitled “Supporting Document for Recommended Maximum Level for Lead in Candy Likely To Be Consumed Frequently by Small Children.” These two documents are intended to assist candy manufacturers in achieving reduced lead levels in their products consistent with the agency's policy of reducing lead levels in the food supply to reduce consumers' lead exposure to the lowest level that practicably can be obtained. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by March 13, 2006. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance and/or draft supporting document to the Division of Plant Product Safety (HFS-305), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance and/or draft supporting document to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.* See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance and draft supporting documents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Kashtock, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-2022. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Lead in Candy Likely To Be Consumed Frequently by Small Children: Recommended Maximum Level and Enforcement Policy.” This draft guidance provides a recommended maximum lead level in candy likely to be consumed frequently by small children. FDA considers the recommended maximum level to be protective of human health and to be achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices in the production of candy and candy ingredients. FDA notes that the recommended level is not for enforcement purposes. In addition, FDA is rescinding previous guidance provided in a 1995 letter to the industry regarding an enforcement level. Finally, this draft guidance reiterates FDA's enforcement policy toward the use of lead based ink on candy wrappers as stated in the 1995 letter to the industry. FDA also is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Supporting Document for Recommended Maximum Level for Lead in Candy Likely To Be Consumed Frequently by Small Children.” The draft supporting document provides additional background and rationale for the recommended maximum level. These two documents are intended to assist candy manufacturers in achieving reduced lead levels in their products consistent with the agency's policy of reducing lead levels in the food supply to reduce consumers' lead exposure to the lowest level that practically can be obtained. The agency has adopted good guidance practices

(GGPs)that set forth the agency's policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use of guidance documents (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance is being issued as a level 1 draft guidance consistent with GGPs. The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on lead levels in candy that are achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices in the production of candy and candy ingredients and that also provides for the protection of human health. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such an approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments on the draft guidance and draft supporting document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and draft supporting document and received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. III. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at *http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html.* Dated: December 14, 2005. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 05-24494 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

Good guidance practices.
§ 10.115

9 references not yet in our index

32 CFR 989
Pub. L. 92-463
40 CFR 355
5 CFR 1320.16
12 CFR 228
12 CFR 225
42 CFR 83.12(e)
42 CFR 83.16(b)
21 CFR 860

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Notice to advise the public of our intent to provide a 45-day extension of the public comment period and a public hearing meeting for the Realistic Bomber Initiative Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Cite32 CFR 989

Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463

Cite40 CFR 355

Cites 22 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources