Notices. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

5,169 words·~23 min read·/register/2006/02/03/06-999

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

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P 71 23 Friday, February 3, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-23334; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-53-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Machine—Diecron, Inc. Actuator Nut Assembly for the Right Main Landing Gear AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for General Machine—Diecron, Inc.

(GMD)actuator nut assembly, part number (P/N) GMD115-810029-17 and P/N GMD115-810029-23, that are installed on certain airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to determine by maintenance records check and/or inspection whether any actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 or P/N GMD115-810029-23, is installed on the right main landing gear

(MLG)actuator, and, if installed, would require you to replace it with a new actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-23B or FAA-approved equivalent P/N. This proposed AD results from several reports of failures of the actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 and P/N GMD115-810029-23. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent failure of the actuator nut assembly for the right MLG actuator, which could result in failure of the MLG. This failure could prevent the extension or retraction of the MLG. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact General Machine—Diecron, Inc., 3131 U.S. Highway 41, Griffin, Georgia 30224, telephone:

(770)228-6200; facsimile:

(770)228-6299, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Buckley, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30337-2748, telephone

(770)703-6086; fax

(770)703-6097. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include the docket number, “FAA-2005-23334; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-53-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of the DOT docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Dockets Where can I go to view the docket information? You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the DOT Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES . Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. Discussion What events have caused this proposed AD? The FAA has received several reports of failure of the actuator nut assembly, part numbers (P/N) GMD115-810029-17 and P/N GMD115-810029-23, for the right main landing gear

(MLG)actuator in airplanes not equipped with a hydraulic MLG or modified to a hydraulic MLG. One failure resulted in the MLG not extending and a “gear-up” landing. Investigation found the separation of the threaded nut insert in the P/N GMD115-810029-17 and P/N GMD115-810029-23 MLG actuator nut assembly. The insert has internal and external threads. The external threads of the insert screw into a threaded steel tube to complete the actuator nut assembly. The internal threads of the insert interface with the Actuator Screw in the Raytheon MLG Actuator. Rotation of the MLG Actuator Screw in the right MLG Actuator transmits load to the insert which tends to unscrew the insert from the GMD Actuator Nut Assembly during the extension cycle of the MLG. If the insert separates (unscrews) from the threaded steel tube, it can prevent the actuator from extending or retracting the MLG to the locked position. The separation of the insert only occurs in the right MLG actuator. What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? This condition, if not corrected, could prevent the extension or retraction of the MLG. Relevant Service Information Is there service information that applies to this subject? We have reviewed General Machine Diecron, Inc. Service Bulletin GM-D 32-30-01/102505, dated November 21, 2005. What are the provisions of this service information? The service information describes procedures for: • Determining by maintenance records check and/or inspection whether any actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 or P/N GMD115-810029-23, is installed on the right MLG actuator; and • If any actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 or P/N GMD115-810029-23, is installed, replacing it with a new P/N GMD115-810029-23B actuator nut assembly. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD Why have we determined AD action is necessary and what would this proposed AD require? We are proposing this AD to address an unsafe condition that we determined is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. The proposed AD would require you to determine by maintenance records check and/or inspection whether any actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 or P/N GMD115-810029-23, is installed on the right MLG actuator, and, if installed, would require you to replace it with a new actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-23B or FAA-approved equivalent P/N. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information Are there differences between the requirements of this AD and what is contained in the service information? If any actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 or P/N GMD115-810029-23, is installed on the right MLG actuator, this AD would require you to replace it with a new actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-23B or FAA-equivalent P/N. The requirements of the proposed AD, if adopted as a final rule, would take precedence over the provisions in the service information. Costs of Compliance How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,629 airplanes in the U.S. registry. What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to do this proposed maintenance records check and/or inspection to determine whether any actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 or P/N GMD115-810029-23, is installed on the right MLG actuator: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost Per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work hour × $65 = $65 Not Applicable $65 1,629 × $65 = $105,885 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements of the actuator nut assembly that would be required based on the results of this proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 4 work hours × $65 = $260 $1,700 $1,960 Authority for This Rulemaking What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings Would this proposed AD impact various entities? We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: **General Machine—Diecron, Inc.:** Docket No. FAA-2005-23334; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-53-AD. When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD?

(a)The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive

(AD)action by April 3, 2006. What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action?

(b)None. What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD?

(c)This AD affects any actuator nut assembly, part number (P/N) GMD115-810029-17 or P/N GMD115-810029-23, for the right main landing gear

(MLG)actuator installed on, but not limited to, the following aircraft that are certificated in any category and not equipped with a hydraulic MLG or modified to a hydraulic MLG. Models Serial Nos.

(1)F90 LA-2 through LA-225 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 90-8011).

(2)99, 99A, A99, and B99 U-1 through U-49 and U51 through U164 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 99-8010-1 or factory installed hydraulic landing gear).

(3)100 and A100 B-1 through B-94, B-100 through B-204, and B-206 through B-247.

(4)B100 BE-1 through BE-137.

(5)200 BB-2, BB-6 through BB-733, BB-735 through BB-792, BB-794 through BB-828, BB-830 through BB-853, BB-872, BB-873, BB-892, BB-893, and BB-912 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 101-8018).

(6)B200 BB-734, BB-793, BB-829, BB-854 through BB-870, BB-874 through BB-891, BB-894, BB-896 through BB-911, and BB-913 through BB-1157, BB-1159 through BB-1166, and BB-1168 through BB-1192 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 101-8018).

(7)200T and B200T BT-1 through BT-30 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 101-8018).

(8)200C and B200C BL-1 through BL-72 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 101-8018).

(9)200CT and B200CT BN-1 through BN-4 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 101-8018).

(10)A200CT (FWC-12D) FG-1 and FG-2 (except aircraft that incorporate Beech Kit No. 101-8018). What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

(d)This AD results from several reports of failures of the actuator nut assembly, P/N GMD115-810029-17 and P/N GMD115-810029-23, on the right MLG actuator. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the actuator nut assembly for the right MLG actuator, which could result in failure of the MLG. This failure could prevent the extension or retraction of the MLG. What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

(e)To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures

(1)Maintenance Records Check: Within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or 30 calendar days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already done No special procedures necessary to check the maintenance records.

(i)Check the maintenance records to determine whether the following replacements have been made:

(A)Actuator nut assembly (part number (P/N) GMD115-810029-17) for the right main landing gear

(MLG)actuator; and

(B)Actuator nut assembly (P/N) GMD115-810029-23 for the right main landing gear

(MLG)actuator

(ii)The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may make this check. You must make an entry into the aircraft records that shows compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9)

(2)If you find as a result of the check required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD that there is no record of the specified assembly replacement then inspect for any: Within the next 50 hours time-in-service

(TIS)or 30 calendar days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, unless already done Follow General Machine Diecron, Inc. Service Bulletin GM-D 32-30-01/102505, dated November 21, 2005.

(i)Actuator nut assembly, (P/N) GMD115-810029-17, for the right main landing gear

(MLG)actuator; and

(ii)Actuator nut assembly, (P/N) GMD115-810029-23, for the right main landing gear

(MLG)actuator

(iii)You may choose to do the inspection without doing the maintenance records check

(3)If during the inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD, you find any actuator nut assembly, (P/N) GMD115-810029-17 or (P/N) GMD115-810029-23, for the right MLG actuator, replace the specific assembly with a new actuator nut assembly, (P/N) GMD115-810029-23B or FAA-approved equivalent (P/N) Before further flight after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD Follow General Machine Diecron, Inc. Service Bulletin GM-D 32-30-01/102505, dated November 21, 2005.

(4)Do not install any actuator nut assembly, (P/N) GMD115-810029-17 or (P/N) GMD115-810029-23, for the right MLG actuator As of the effective date of this AD Not Applicable. May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?

(f)The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(g)For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance or for information pertaining to this AD, contact Don Buckley, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30337-2748, telephone

(770)703-6086; fax

(770)703-6097. May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD?

(h)To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact General Machine—Diecron, Inc., 3131 U.S. Highway 41, Griffin, Georgia 30224, telephone:

(770)228-6200; facsimile:

(770)228-6299. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2005-23334; Directorate Identifier 2005-CE-53-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 30, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-1470 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD 40 CFR Part 1604 Accident Investigation Initiation Notice and Order To Preserve Evidence; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

(CSB)is extending the period for comment on the proposed rule entitled, “Accident Investigation Initiation Notice and Order to Preserve Evidence,” which was published in the **Federal Register** on January 4, 2006 (71 FR 309). DATES: Written comments now must be received on or before March 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments concerning the proposed rule, by the following method: • Mail / Express delivery service: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Office of General Counsel, Attn: Christopher Warner, 2175 K Street, NW., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20037. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Warner, 202-261-7600. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 4, 2006, the CSB published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 309) a proposed rule that would establish the means by which the CSB will preserve accident scenes/sites, and the evidence within those sites. The proposed rule is centered around a procedure by which the CSB may issue a written “Notice of Accident Investigation Initiation and Order to Preserve Evidence.” The CSB is proposing this rule to address critical issues surrounding evidence preservation, so that CSB investigators have the fullest possible opportunity to determine the causes of chemical accidents to which they are deployed. The proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment period, to end on February 3, 2006. After publication of the proposed rule, the CSB received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period from three trade associations—the American Petroleum Institute, The Fertilizer Institute, and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association. Another private sector firm, ORC Worldwide, requested a 30-day extension. The reasons cited in support of additional time for comments included a need to more thoroughly evaluate the proposed rule, a need to obtain and review relevant background materials, and a need for member companies to review and discuss the proposed rule. The CSB also received a request for a 60-day comment period extension from one government agency, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which cited the complexity of the issues presented by the proposed rule. The CSB carefully reviewed these requests and considered the reasons for a comment period extension cited therein. The CSB also considered the importance of maintaining a timely rulemaking process, in light of the direct impact the proposed rule would have on the agency's core mission investigative activities. The CSB has thus determined that a 30-day extension of the comment period is reasonable and sufficient. Written comments on the proposed rule must now be received by March 6, 2006. Dated: January 30, 2006. Christopher W. Warner, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-1464 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P 71 23 Friday, February 3, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. 04-112-2] Monsanto Company; Availability of Determination of Nonregulated Status for Corn Genetically Engineered To Express High Lysine Levels AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our determination that the Monsanto Company corn designated as transformation event LY038, which has been genetically engineered to express a lysine-insensitive dihydrodipicolinate synthase (cDHDPS) enzyme to allow for the accumulation of higher levels of lysine in the germ of the seed, is no longer considered a regulated article under our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms. Our determination is based on our evaluation of data submitted by the Monsanto Company in their petition for a determination of nonregulated status, our analysis of other scientific data, and comments received from the public in response to a previous notice announcing the availability of the petition for nonregulated status and an environmental assessment. This notice also announces the availability of our written determination and our finding of no significant impact. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may read the petition, the environmental assessment, the determination, the finding of no significant impact, and the comments that we received on Docket No. 04-112-1 in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. You may also view the comments we received on Docket No. 04-112-1 on the Internet. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2005-0075 then click on “Submit.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Levis Handley, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;

(301)734-5721. To obtain copies of the determination, the petition, the environmental assessment (EA), or the finding of no significant impact (FONSI), contact Ms. Ingrid Berlanger at

(301)734-4885; e-mail: *ingrid.e.berlanger@aphis.usda.gov.* The petition and the EA, including the FONSI and determination, are also available on the Internet at: *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/04_22901p.pdf* , *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/04_22901p_p.ea.pdf* , and *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs2/04_22901p_com.pdf.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs

(b)and

(c)of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition. On August 16, 2004, APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 04-229-01p) from Monsanto Company (Monsanto) of St. Louis, MO, on behalf of Renessen LLC of Deerfield, IL, requesting a determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340 for corn ( *Zea mays* L.) designated as transformation event LY038 which has been genetically engineered to produce higher levels of lysine in the seed than is typically found in corn. The Monsanto petition states that the subject corn should not be regulated by APHIS because it does not present a plant pest risk. As described in the petition, the LY038 corn has been genetically modified to express the *cordap* A gene from *Cornybacterium glutamicum.* This gene encodes for lysine-insensitive dihydrodipicolinate synthase (cDHDPS) enzyme. The expression of cordapA is under the control of the maize Glb1 promoter, which directs cDHDPS expression predominately in the germ of the seed, resulting in accumulation of lysine in the grain. Corn-soybean meal based diets formulated for poultry and swine are characteristically deficient in lysine and require the addition of supplemental lysine for optimal animal growth and production. Development of LY038 corn may provide an alternative to direct addition of supplemental lysine to poultry and swine diets. In a notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56411-56443, Docket No. 04-112-1), APHIS announced the availability of the Monsanto petition and an environmental assessment (EA). APHIS solicited comments on whether the subject corn would present a plant pest risk and on the EA. APHIS received 14 comments by the close of the 60-day comment period, which ended on November 28, 2005. Seven of the comments supported a determination of nonregulated status for LY038 corn and seven were opposed. None of the comments addressed specific plant pest issues. APHIS' response to these comments can be found in an attachment to the finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Determination Based on APHIS' analysis of field, greenhouse, and laboratory data submitted by Monsanto, references provided in the petition, other relevant information as described in the EA, and comments provided by the public, APHIS has determined that LY038 will not pose a plant pest risk for the following reasons:

(1)It exhibits no plant pathogenic properties (although it was originally engineered with regulatory sequences derived from plant pathogens, these plants are neither infected nor can incite disease);

(2)it exhibits no characteristics that would cause it to be more weedy than the non-transgenic parent corn line or other cultivated corn;

(3)gene introgression from LY038 into wild relatives in the United States and its territories is extremely unlikely and is not likely to increase the weediness potential of any resulting progeny nor adversely affect genetic diversity of related plants any more than would introgression from traditional corn hybrids;

(4)disease and insect susceptibility is similar to non-transgenic corn;

(5)it exhibits no potential to have a significant adverse impact on organisms beneficial to agriculture;

(6)compared to current agricultural practices, cultivation of line LY038 and its progeny should not reduce the ability to control insects or weeds in corn or other crops. In addition to our finding of no plant pest risk, there will be no effect on threatened or endangered species resulting from a determination on nonregulated status for LY038 and its progeny. Therefore, APHIS has concluded that the subject corn and any progeny derived from hybrid crosses with other non-transformed corn varieties will be no more of a plant pest than corn varieties in traditional breeding programs that are not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340. The effect of this determination is that Monsanto LY038 corn is no longer considered a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340. The requirements pertaining to regulated articles under those regulations no longer apply to the subject corn or its progeny. However, importation of LY038 corn and seeds capable of propagation are still subject to the restrictions found in APHIS' foreign quarantine notices in 7 CFR part 319 and imported seed regulations in 7 CFR part 361. National Environmental Policy Act An EA was prepared to examine any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risk associated with the determination of nonregulated status for the Monsanto LY038 corn. The EA was prepared in accordance with:

(1)The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ),

(2)regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),

(3)USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and

(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Based on that EA, APHIS has reached a FONSI with regard to the determination that Monsanto LY038 corn and lines developed from it are no longer regulated articles under its regulations in 7 CFR part 340. Copies of the EA and FONSI are available from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-1481 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to renew the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee charter and request for nominations. SUMMARY: The Secretary of Agriculture is considering the renewal of the charter of the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region. Nominations of persons to serve on the LTFAC are invited. DATES: Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received in writing by March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send nominations and applications (Form AD-755) with telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for membership on the Committee to: FACA Nomination, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, or Mark Struble, Acting Legislative & Public Affairs Officer, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, telephone

(530)543-2758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture is considering the renewal of the charter of the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and to the Federal Interagency Partnership (Partnership) on how the Partnership can best fulfill its duties pursuant to Executive Order 13057, issued July 26, 1997; how to facilitate the integration and coordination of appropriate Federal programs and funds to help achieve the goals of the Lake Tahoe Regional Environmental Improvement Program; and other matters raised by the Secretary. The Secretary of Agriculture established the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (Committee) on July 13, 1998; renewed the Committee's charter on June 19, 2000; amended the charter on April 17, 2001, to provide advice to the Partnership; and renewed the charter on June 13, 2002 and June 3, 2004. The current charter for the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will expire June 7, 2006, and is currently being considered for renewal by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary has previously determined that the work of the Committee is in the public interest and relevant to the duties of the Department of Agriculture. Representatives will be selected from the following sectors:

(1)Gaming,

(2)environmental,

(3)national environmental,

(4)ski resorts,

(5)North Shore economic/recreation,

(6)South Shore economic/recreation,

(7)resort associations,

(8)education,

(9)property rights advocates,

(10)member-at-large,

(11)member-at-large,

(12)science and research,

(13)California local government,

(14)Washoe Tribe,

(15)State of California,

(16)State of Nevada,

(17)Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,

(18)labor,

(19)transportation and

(20)Nevada local government. Nominations to the Committee should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for membership on the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee. The Committee Chair will be approved by the Designated Federal Official. Vacancies on the Committee will be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. Members of the Committee serve without pay, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses. Committee members serve a two year term and will meet as often as is necessary to complete its business, but no less than four times a year. Appointments to the Committee will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include to the extent practicable individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and senior citizens. Dated: January 27, 2006. Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-999 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

9 references not yet in our index