Notices. Notice
4,367 words·~20 min read·
/register/2006/01/12/06-275A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2003D-0386 (formerly Docket No. 03D-0386)] Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing Practice; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP.” The guidance describes a formal, two-tiered dispute resolution process intended to resolve disputes of scientific and technical issues relating to current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP)that arise during FDA inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturers. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time. ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448; or Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 28052. Submit electronic comments to *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward M. Sherwood, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-3), Food and Drug Administration, White Oak 21, rm. 3528, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1605. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical CGMP.” The guidance was developed as part of the FDA initiative “Pharmaceutical CGMPs for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach,” which was announced in August 2002. The initiative focuses on FDA's current CGMP program and covers the manufacture of veterinary and human drugs, including human biological drug products. The agency formed the Dispute Resolution Working Group comprising representatives from the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). The working group met weekly on issues related to the dispute resolution process and met with stakeholders in December 2002 to seek their input. The guidance was initiated in response to industry's request for a formal dispute resolution process to resolve differences related to scientific and technical issues that arise between investigators and pharmaceutical manufacturers during FDA inspections. In addition to encouraging manufacturers to use currently available dispute resolution processes, the guidance describes a formal two-tiered dispute resolution process that provides a mechanism for requesting review and decision on issues that arise during inspections. On September 5, 2003 (68 FR 52777), the FDA announced the availability of the draft version of this guidance. The public comment period closed on March 5, 2004. A number of comments were received, which the agency considered carefully as it finalized the guidance and made appropriate changes. The agency conducted a pilot program with industry for a 12-month period. During that time, the agency received one Tier 1 request for dispute resolution and it was resolved. In addition, FDA met with representatives from industry trade associations in September 2004, near the end of the pilot period, to discuss the draft guidance and receive input. Most of the changes to the guidance were made to clarify statements in the draft guidance. The following changes in the final guidance are noteworthy:
(1)The time period for manufacturers to ask for clarification of a disputed scientific or technical issue was extended from 10 to 30 days;
(2)if a request for formal dispute resolution reaches the agency's Dispute Resolution Panel and is considered appropriate for review, the panel will schedule a meeting to discuss the issue within 90 days of the request instead of the indefinite time period indicated in the draft guidance;
(3)the guidance directs manufacturers to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health for disputes involving combination products when medical device components are the focus of the dispute, but clarifies that disputes solely involving medical devices are outside the scope of this guidance; and
(4)the guidance clarifies that, during the dispute resolution process, a manufacturer may include relevant information that was not presented during the inspection, if FDA determines that a reasonable explanation was given on why the information was not presented during the inspection. This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on formal dispute resolution: scientific and technical issues related to pharmaceutical CGMP. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. II. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this 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. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. III. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in this guidance was approved under OMB control number 0910-0563. IV. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance document at the following *http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm* or *http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guidance.html* . Dated: January 4, 2006. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E6-233 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of Meeting In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting: *Name:* National Advisory Council on Migrant Health. *Dates and Times:* January 30, 2006, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. January 31, 2006, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. *Place:* 5600 Fishers Lane, Conference Room C, 3rd Floor, Rockville, Maryland 20857. *Status:* The meeting will be open to the public. *Agenda:* The agenda includes an overview of the Council's general business activities. The Council will also develop recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Finally, the Council will hear presentations from experts on farmworker issues, including the status of farmworker health at the local and national level. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate. *For Further Information Contact:* Anyone requiring information regarding the Council should contact Gladys Cate, Office of Minority and Special Populations, staff support to the National Advisory Council on Migrant Health, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone
(301)594-0367. Dated: January 5, 2006. Tina M. Cheatham, Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. [FR Doc. E6-171 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on
(240)276-1243. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collections of information are 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. Proposed Project: Screening, Brief Intervention, Brief Treatment and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) Cross-Site Evaluation—New SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
(CSAT)is conducting a cross-site external evaluation of the impact of programs of screening, brief intervention (BI), brief treatment
(BT)and referral to treatment on patients presenting at various health care delivery units with a continuum of severity of substance use. CSAT's SBIRT program is a cooperative agreement grant program designed to help six States and one Tribal Council expand the continuum of care available for substance misuse and use disorders. The program includes screening, BI, BT and referrals for persons at risk for dependence on alcohol or drugs. The primary purpose of the evaluation is to study the extent to which the modified models of SBIRT being implemented by the grantees expand the continuum of care available for treatment of substance use disorders. A survey will be used to collect data from patients at the participating grantee health care delivery units at baseline using a computer-assisted personal interview
(CAPI)and at a six-month follow-up primarily via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). A second survey will be administered to practitioners who are delivering SBIRT services using CAPI. The patient survey is composed of questions on substance use behaviors and other outcome measures such as productivity, absenteeism, health status, arrests and accidents. The practitioner survey is designed to evaluate the implementation of proposed SBIRT models by measuring their penetration and practitioners' willingness to adopt. Furthermore, the survey will document moderating factors related to practitioner and health care delivery unit characteristics. Total Burden Hours for the Cross-Site Patient Survey Instrument/activity Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response Total burden hours per collection Cross-Site Patient Survey: Baseline Data Collection 10,500 1 .25 2,625 6-Month Follow-up Data Collection (80% of baseline) 8,400 1 .25 2,100 Cross-Site Practitioner Survey 270 1 .25 67.5 Total 19,170 4,793 Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Dated: January 4, 2006. Anna Marsh, Director, Office of Program Services. [FR Doc. E6-209 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed extension of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning reimbursement of claims submitted for fighting fires on Federal property. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The collection of information is necessary in order to reimburse fire services for claims submitted for fighting fires on property that is under jurisdiction of the United States. Section II of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, implemented under 44 CFR part 151, provides that each fire service that engages in the fighting of a fire on property which is under the jurisdiction of the United States and who has a mutual aid agreement in effect between claimant and the 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)for the property upon which the fire occurred, may file a claim with FEMA for the amount of direct expense and direct losses incurred by such fire services as a result of fighting fires. 1 The Reimbursement for Cost of Fighting Fire on Federal Property program is currently being transferred to the newly created Preparedness Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. During this transition FEMA, also part of the Department of Homeland Security, will continue to support this program as the new Directorate stands up. Ultimately this data collection will be transferred to the Preparedness Directorate. Collection of Information *Title:* Reimbursement for Cost of Fighting Fire on Federal Property. *Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *OMB Number:* 1660-0014. *Abstract:* The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)Director; the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration (USFA); and the United States Treasury will use the information to ensure proper expenditure of Federal funds. Once a claim is received, a copy of FEMA determination and the claim is forwarded to the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department will pay for fire services or its parent jurisdiction for any moneys in the treasury subject to reimbursement, to the Federal department or agency under whose jurisdiction the fire occurred. *Affected Public:* Business or Other For-Profit, Not For-Profit Institutions, and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* Annual Burden Hours Information collection activities Number of respondents
(A)Frequency of responses
(B)Burden hours per respondent
(C)Annual responses
(AxB)Total annual burden hours (AxBxC) Claims Information 4 On Occasion 1.5 16 24 Total 4 1.5 16 24 *Estimated Cost:* The annualized cost burden for Fire Chiefs to complete and process a claim is estimated to be $15,288 annually. *Comments:* Written comments are solicited to
(a)evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)evaluate 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)enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments must be submitted on or before February 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Chief, Records Management Section, Information Resources Management Branch, Information Technology Services Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Tim Ganley, Fire Program Specialist, U.S. Fire Administration,
(301)447-1358 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management Branch for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number
(202)646-3347 or e-mail address: * FEMA-Information-Collections@dhs.gov.* Dated: January 4, 2006. Darcy Bingham, Branch Chief, Information Resources Management Branch, Information Technology Services Division. [FR Doc. E6-212 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-17-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [UT-080-05-1310-DB] Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area Natural Gas Development Project, Uintah County, UT AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and associated regulations, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)that evaluates, analyzes, and discloses to the public direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of a proposal to develop natural gas in Uintah County, Utah. DATES: The DEIS will be available for review for 45 calendar days following the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its NOA in the **Federal Register** . The BLM can best use comments and resource information submitted within this 45-day review period. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed directly or delivered to the BLM at: CWSA DEIS, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078. Comments may be submitted by facsimile to the Vernal Field Office at 435-781-4410. At this time BLM is unable to accept electronic comments. A copy of the DEIS has been sent to the affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, Native American Tribes and to interested parties. Copies of the DEIS are available for public inspection at the address listed above and the Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Howard, Project Manager, BLM Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078. Ms. Howard may also be reached at 435-781-4400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to a proposal submitted by EOG Resources, Inc., (EOG), the BLM published in the October 1, 2004, **Federal Register** a Notice of Intent
(NOI)to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area
(CWSA)involves approximately 31,870 acres located in Townships 8 through 10 South, Ranges 22 and 23 East, Salt Lake Base Meridian, about 30 miles south of Vernal, Uintah County, Utah. The DEIS analyzes a proposal by EOG to fully develop Federal natural gas resources in the Chapita Wells and the Stagecoach Units, in addition to non-unitized lands in the project area. The Company's proposal includes drilling a total of up to 627 new wells and constructing associated ancillary transportation and transmission facilities within the project area. Of the planned wells, 473 wells would be new locations and 154 wells would be twinned, drilled from existing locations. Of the 31,870 acres within the project area, about 71% is Federal lands administered by the BLM; 21% is owned by the Ute Tribe and/or its allottees and administered by the BIA; 6% is owned by the State of Utah and administered by the Utah State School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and 2% is privately owned. The proposed life of the project is 40 years, with the majority of the drilling and development activities to occur within the first 7 years following approval of the BLM's Record of Decision. As set out in the NOI, EOG proposes to fully develop its existing leases within the Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area. As of March 2004, the CWSA contained 325 gas-producing wells, about 121 miles of roads and 115 miles of pipeline. An additional 100 wells, 12 miles of access road, and 18.5 miles of pipelines were approved by EA No. UT-080-1999-32, *Environmental Assessment, Chapita Wells Unit Infill Development, Uintah County, Utah.* Currently no oil wells or produced water disposal wells occur in the CWSA. The new gas wells would be drilled to the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, Mancos “B”, and possibly, other formations. EOG's proposal is based on 40-acre spacing; although some pilot 20-acre locations may be drilled to the Mesaverde Group to help in determining whether development on 40-acre spacing can reasonably provide for optimum recovery. 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. The DEIS describes in detail and analyzes the impacts of EOG's Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Seven additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The following is a summary of the alternatives: 1. *Proposed Action* —Up to 627 new gas wells at 40-acre spacing, including up to 66 new locations drilled on 20-acre spacing, would be drilled to the Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde Group (including the Blackhawk), Mancos Shale, and possibly, other formations. About 99 miles of new roads and 104.5 miles of pipelines would be constructed to support this proposed development. At this time the Proposed Action is the BLM's preferred alternative. 2. *No Action Alternative* —The proposed natural gas development on Federal lands would not be implemented; however, natural gas development would continue to occur under the authority of the 1985 Book Cliffs RMP, the 1999 Chapita Wells EA, and on non-Federal lands within the project area. 3. *Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis* — a. One pad per well. b. No new development. c. Directional drilling. d. No new development in the White River Corridor and floodplains. e. White River Protection. f. Decreased density. g. Best Management Practices (BMP). The public is encouraged to comment on any of these alternatives. The BLM welcomes your comments on the Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area 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, and included, 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. William Stringer, Vernal Field Manager. [FR Doc. E6-251 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 30 Day Notice of Intention To Request Clearance of Collection of Information; Opportunity for Public Comment AGENCY: National Park Service, The Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 3507) and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Record keeping Requirements, the National Park Service invites public comments on a submitted request to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve an extension of a currently approved collection (OMB #1024-1018). The primary purpose of the Information Collection Request is to nominate properties for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the official list of the Nation's cultural resources worthy of preservation, which public law requires that the Secretary of the Interior maintain and expand. Properties are listed in the National Register upon nomination by State Historic Preservation Officers and Federal Preservation Officers. Law also requires Federal agencies to request determinations of eligibility for property under their jurisdiction or affected by their programs and projects. The forms provide the historic documentation on which decisions for listing and eligibility are based. DATES: Public comments will be accepted on or before February 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #1024-0018), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at 202/395-6566, or by electronic mail at *oira_docket@omb.eop.gov* . Please also mail or hand carry a copy of your comments to Beth L. Savage, Managing Editor, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., #2280, Washington, DC 20240. All comments will be a matter of public record. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 36 CFR parts 60 and 63, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Continuation Sheet, Multiple Property Documentation Forms (aka MPS). *Form:* NPS 10-900, 10-900-a, 10-900-b. *OMB Control Number:* 1024-0018. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Expiration Date:* December 31, 2005. *Description of need:* The National Historic Preservation Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to maintain and expand the National Register of Historic Places, and to establish criteria and guidelines for including properties in the National Register. The National Register of Historic Places Registration Form documents properties nominated for listing in the National Register and demonstrates that they meet the criteria established for inclusion. The documentation is used to assist in preserving and protecting the properties and for heritage education and interpretation. National Register properties must be considered in the planning for Federal or federally assisted projects. National Register listing is required for eligibility for the federal rehabilitation tax incentives. Comments are invited on:
(1)The need for information including whether the information has practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the reporting burden estimate;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. *Description of respondents:* The affected public are State, tribal, and local governments, businesses, non-profit organizations, and individuals. Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places are voluntary. *Estimated annual reporting burden:* 52,824 hours, broken down as follows: 196 nominations submitted under existing MPS @ 18 hrs. each = 3,528; 1,186 newly proposed individual nominations @ 36 hrs. each = 42,696; 55 newly proposed MPS @ 120 hrs. each = 6,600. *Estimated average burden hours per response:* Depending on which form is used, the average burden hours per response may vary considerably because of many complex factors. In general, to fulfill minimum program requirements describing the nominated property and demonstrating its eligibility under the criteria, the average burden hours range from 18 hours for a nomination proposed under an existing Multiple Property Submission (MPS), to 36 hours for a newly proposed individual nomination, to 120 hours for a newly proposed MPS. Continuation sheets (10-900-a) are used for additional information for both the individual nomination form and the multiple property form, as needed. As such, the calculation of average burden hours per response for the continuation sheets has been included in the average calculations above for the nomination form (10-900) and the multiple property form (10-900-b). *Estimated average number of respondents:* 1,513. *Estimated frequency of response:* 1,513 annually. Dated: December 14, 2005. Leonard E. Stowe, NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 06-275 Filed 1-11-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
5 references not yet in our index
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- Pub. L. 92-463
- 44 CFR 151
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 5 CFR 1320
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Cite44 USC 3501-3520
Pub. L.Pub. L. 92-463
Cite44 CFR 151
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite5 CFR 1320
Cites 6Cited by 0 across 0 sources