Notices. Notice

9,003 words·~41 min read·/register/2006/04/04/06-3179·

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

BILLING CODE 4000-01-M DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2 March 28, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1319-003. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits Substitute First Revised Sheet 102 to its Wholesale Distribution Tariff, Small Generator Interconnection Procedures, in accordance with FERC's Order issued 10/11/05. *Filed Date:* 03/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060324-0031. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m.

Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-532-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. FirstEnergy Service Company. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc & FirstEnergy Service Co, on behalf of American Transmission Systems Incorporated submit a revised tariff sheet in compliance with FERC's 3/16/06 Order. *Filed Date:* 03/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060324-0049. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-765-000. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an unexecuted interconnection service agreement among PJM, H-P Energy Resources, LLC, and Monongahela Power Co. *Filed Date:* 03/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060324-0025. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m.

Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-766-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed interconnection agreement with City Utilities of Springfield, MO and Empire Electric District Co. *Filed Date:* 03/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060324-0026. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-767-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits unexecuted network integration transmission service agreement with Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority etc. *Filed Date:* 03/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060324-0027. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m.

Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 11, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding.

Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link.

Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.

There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-4794 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Filings March 20, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-499-001. *Applicants:* PJM Interconnection L.L.C. *Description:* PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an amendment to its 1/18/06 filing of revisions to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0284. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-542-001. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Electric Power Company. *Description:* Wisconsin Electric Power Co amends its 1/25/06 filing to reflect subsequent change in the Commission's regulations. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0285. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-700-001. *Applicants:* California Independent System Operator Corporation. *Description:* California Independent System Operator Corp submits clarifications and corrections to their March 2006 Credit Policy Amendments. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0273. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-726-000. *Applicants:* Madison Windpower, LLC. *Description:* Madison Windpower LLC petitions the Commission for order accepting market-based rate schedule for filing and granting waivers and blanket approvals. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0274. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-727-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool Inc submits an unexecuted service agreement for Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Calpine Energy Services LP, effective 2/15/06. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0275. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-728-000. *Applicants:* Mirant Potrero LLC. *Description:* Mirant Potrero LLC submits revisions to its must Must-Run Service Agreement with the California Independent System Operator Corp. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0276. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-729-000. *Applicants:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc. *Description:* Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0277. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-730-000. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume. *Filed Date:* 3/14/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060317-0278. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov.* To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-4801 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ORD-2005-0530; FRL-8052-2] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Reference or Equivalent Method Determination; EPA ICR No. 0559.09 OMB Control No. 2080.0005 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is being revised in response to proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: Office of Environmental Information

(OEI)Docket, *oei.dochet@epa.gov* . • Fax: 202-566-1749. • Mail: EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 2 copies.” • Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 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-ORD-2005-0530. The 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 *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. 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 *http://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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert W. Vanderpool, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division, Process Modeling Research Branch, Mail Drop D205-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-7877; facsimile number: 919-541-1153; e-mail: *Vanderpool.Robert@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530, which is available for online viewing at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is 202-566-1742. Use *http://www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested In? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)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;

(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(iv)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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When 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 and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of 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 the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are primarily manufacturers and vendors of ambient air quality monitoring instruments that are used by state and local air quality monitoring agencies in their federally required air surveillance monitoring networks, and agents acting for such instrument manufacturers or vendors. Other entities potentially affected may include state or local air monitoring agencies, other users of ambient air quality monitoring instruments, or any other applicant for a reference or equivalent method determination. *Title:* Application for Reference and Equivalent Method Determination (OMB Control No. 2080-0005; EPA ICR 0559.09. *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 0559.08; OMB Control No. 2080-0005. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January 2008. Revisions to the ICR are being made in response to proposed revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* To determine compliance with the NAAQS, State air monitoring agencies are required to use, in their air quality monitoring networks, air monitoring methods that have been formally designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 53. A manufacturer or seller of an air monitoring method ( *e.g.* an air monitoring sampler or analyzer) that seeks to obtain such EPA designation of one of its products must carry out prescribed tests of the method. The test results and other information must then be submitted to the EPA in the form of an application for a reference or equivalent method determination in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. The EPA uses this information, under the provisions of part 53, to determine whether the particular method should be designated as either a reference or equivalent method. After a method is designated, the applicant must also maintain records of the names and mailing addresses of all ultimate purchasers of all analyzers or samplers sold as designated methods under the method designation. If the method designated is a method for fine particulate matter (PM <sup>2.5</sup> ) and coarse particulate matter (PM <sup>10-2.5</sup> ), the applicant must also submit a checklist signed by an ISO-certified auditor to indicate that the samplers or analyzers sold as part of the designated method are manufactured in an ISO 9001-registered facility. Also, an applicant must submit a minor application to seek approval for any proposed modifications to previously designated methods. A response to this collection of information is voluntary, but it is required to obtain the benefit of EPA designation under 40 CFR part 53. Submission of some information that is claimed by the applicant to be confidential business information may be necessary to make a reference or equivalent method determination. The confidentiality of any submitted information identified as confidential business information by the applicant will be protected in full accordance with 40 CFR 53.15 and all applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 2. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The EPA would like to solicit comment to:

(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)evaluate the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(iv)minimize the burden of the collection information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average approximately 7,492 hours during the next three years. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 22. *Frequency of response:* Annual. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* 1. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 7,492. *Estimated total annual costs:* $650,494. This includes an estimated burden cost of $517,831 and an estimated cost of $132,668 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? There is an increase of 2,774 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA's estimate that an average of 1.33 additional applications for reference or equivalent method determinations, and an average of 1.67 additional minor applications for approval of modifications, will be received annually following promulgation of the proposed regulation changes. It is estimated that there will be a corresponding increase in total respondent costs of $219,112 for these additional applications and an increase in $4,415 for these additional minor modifications. What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. Dated: February 23, 2006. Jewel F. Morris, Acting Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory. [FR Doc. E6-4859 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8053-7] Announcement of a Supplement to the Delegation of the Title V Permitting Program, Consistent With 40 CFR Part 71, to the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and the Suspension of Part 71 Fee Collection by USEPA for the Four Corners Steam Electric Station and the Navajo Generating Station AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Informational notice. SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce that on March 21, 2006, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) granted the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency's (NNEPA) request to supplement its full delegation of authority to administer the Clean Air Act's (the Act) Federal Title V operating permits program to include the Four Corners Steam Electric Station and the Navajo Generating Station (the Power Plants). Under this supplemental delegation, NNEPA will issue and implement Title V operating permits pursuant to 40 CFR part 71 for the Power Plants, which are located within the formal boundaries of the Navajo Nation reservation, and will otherwise administer the program for these sources. The terms and conditions of the supplemental delegation are specified in a Supplemental Delegation of Authority Agreement (Agreement) between the USEPA Region IX and NNEPA, signed and dated on March 21, 2006. Region IX is also simultaneously suspending its collection of part 71 fees, pursuant to 40 CFR 71.9(c)(2)(ii), for the Power Plants. DATES: The effective date for the Agreement between USEPA and NNEPA, and USEPA's suspension of its part 71 fee collection for the Power Plants is March 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the letter requesting supplemental delegation of authority to administer the Federal operating permits program for the Power Plants and the Agreement between USEPA and NNEPA are available for public inspection at USEPA's Region IX Office, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 and at the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Control Program Office, Rt. 12 North/Bldg #F004-051, Fort Defiance, AZ 86504. Effective March 21, 2006, all notifications, requests, applications, reports and other correspondence required under 40 CFR part 71 for the Power Plants shall be submitted to NNEPA's Air Quality Control Program Office at the following address: Navajo Nation Air Quality Control Program Office, P.O. Box 529 Fort Defiance, AZ 86504, Attn: Charlene Nelson. Sources will also remain obligated to submit copies of such documents to USEPA as set forth in the terms and conditions of their part 71 permits and consistent with Section VII(2) of the Agreement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emmanuelle Rapicavoli, Permits Office (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Telephone: 415-972-3969, e-mail: *rapicavoli.emmanuelle@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this notice is to announce that on March 21, 2006, USEPA granted NNEPA's request to supplement its existing full delegation of authority to administer the part 71 Federal operating permits program to include the Power Plants. The Act and its implementing regulations under 40 CFR part 71 authorize USEPA to delegate authority to administer the part 71 program to any eligible Tribe that submits a demonstration of adequate regulatory procedures and authority for administration of the part 71 operating permits program. In order to be considered an “eligible tribe,” the NNEPA submitted, in August 2005, an application for a determination, under the provisions of the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), 40 CFR part 49, that it is eligible to be treated in the same manner as a state for the purpose of receiving delegation of authority to administer the Federal part 71 operating permit program for the Power Plants. Region IX reviewed NNEPA's application and determined that it met the four criteria for eligibility, identified in 40 CFR 49.6, for the Power Plants, and was thus eligible for entering into a supplemental delegation agreement with USEPA Region IX to administer the part 71 program for the Power Plants. USEPA Region IX's eligibility determination was signed on March 21, 2006. On October 15, 2004, USEPA Region IX and the NNEPA entered into a delegation of authority agreement (October 2004 Delegation Agreement) to allow NNEPA to administer the Federal part 71 operating permits program on behalf of USEPA for all part 71 sources except for the Power Plants within a Delegated Program Area specified in that agreement. The October 2004 Delegation Agreement excluded the Power Plants because the Navajo Nation and the participants of the Power Plants disagree as to the Nation's jurisdiction to regulate the Power Plants under a delegated Part 71 Program based on the existence of certain provisions contained in leases and grants of rights-of-way (the “Covenants” and “Grants”) as between the Navajo Nation and the two facilities. In light of this disagreement, on May 18, 2005, NNEPA entered into a voluntary compliance agreement

(VCA)with the participants of the Power Plants, which provides that the parties will not assert or challenge any effect of the Covenants and Grants on the authority of NNEPA to administer a delegated part 71 program on behalf of USEPA with respect to the Plants or on the applicability to the Plants of the requirements of the Navajo Nation laws that have been expressly incorporated into a part 71 permit administered by the Navajo Nation EPA, without prejudice to their rights to assert or challenge the Covenants or Grants after expiration or termination of the VCA. Therefore, for so long as the VCA remains in effect, the VCA resolves the dispute between the Navajo Nation and the Power Plants as to impact of the Covenants or Grants on NNEPA's ability to regulate the Power Plants pursuant to the delegation of the administration of the part 71 Program. In August 2005, NNEPA submitted a request to the USEPA Region IX, pursuant to 40 CFR 71.10, to supplement the October 2004 Delegation Agreement by delegating authority to NNEPA to administer the Part 71 Program with respect to the Power Plants. As part of its request, NNEPA submitted a legal opinion from its attorney general stating that the Navajo Nation Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, the Navajo Nation Air Quality Control Program Operating Permit Regulations and the VCA provide it adequate authority to carry out all aspects of the delegated program for the Power Plants. NNEPA also provided all necessary documentation to demonstrate that it has adequate authority and adequate resources to administer the part 71 Federal permitting program for the Power Plants. Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.10(b), USEPA hereby notifies the public that effective March 21, 2006, it has granted NNEPA's request and is fully delegating the authority to administer the federal operating permits program for the Power Plants as set forth under 40 CFR part 71 and in the Agreement. The terms and conditions for the supplemental delegation are specified in the Agreement between USEPA Region IX and NNEPA signed and dated on March 21, 2006. If, at any time, USEPA determines that NNEPA is not adequately administering or cannot adequately administer the requirements of part 71 or fulfill the terms of the Agreement, this supplemental delegation may be revoked, in whole or in part, pursuant to 40 CFR 71.10(c), after appropriate consultation with NNEPA. The Agreement also provides that the supplemental delegation will automatically terminate with respect to either Power Plant for which the VCA has terminated or expired. USEPA will notify the public through a **Federal Register** notice of a partial or full termination of this Agreement. Under the supplemental delegation, USEPA retains its authority to

(1)object to the issuance of any part 71 permit for the Power Plants,

(2)act upon petitions submitted by the public regarding the Power Plants, and

(3)collect fees from the owners or operators of the Power Plants if it is demonstrated that NNEPA is not adequately administering the part 71 program with respect to the Power Plants, in accordance with the Agreement, 40 CFR part 71, and/or the Act. Because USEPA is retaining its authority to act upon petitions submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 71.10(h) and 71.11(n), any such petitions must be submitted to USEPA Region IX following the procedures set forth in those regulations. USEPA also notifies the public, pursuant to 40 CFR 71.9(c)(2)(ii), that effective March 21, 2006, it has suspended collection of its part 71 permit fees for the Power Plants. In delegating the administration of the part 71 program, USEPA has determined that NNEPA can collect fees under tribal law sufficient to fund the delegated part 71 program for the Power Plants and carry out the duties specified in the Agreement. Dated: March 21, 2006. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region 9. [FR Doc. E6-4845 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8053-6] Notice of Availability of Revisions to Proposed NPDES General Permits for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems

(MS4s)in New Mexico, Indian Country Lands in New Mexico and Indian Country Lands in Oklahoma AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is announcing the availability of a supplemental fact sheet describing proposed revisions to, and is reopening the comment period for, previously proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for storm water discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems

(MS4s)located in the State of New Mexico (NMR040000), Indian Country Lands in New Mexico (NMR04000I), and Indian Country Lands in Oklahoma (OKR04000I). These permits were previously publically noticed on September 9, 2003 (68 FR 53166) and a 45 day public comment period on all parts of the permits was provided at that time. The public comment period is being reopened for the limited purpose of accepting public comments on changes which have been made to the draft permits primarily as a method to address a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which remanded certain portions of the Phase II NPDES storm water regulations related to issuance of general permits for small MS4s. The Region is accepting comments only on today's proposed changes to the draft permits. Following the close of the comment period, the Director will make a final permit decision based on comments received during both the initial comment period and the reopened comment period. DATES: Comments on today's revisions to these draft permits must be submitted by May 4, 2006. Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight on the last day of the comment period. EPA is not required to consider late comments. ADDRESSES: Comments on today's revisions to the draft general permits should be sent to Docket No. 6WQ-03-SW01, Attn: Ms. Diane Smith, EPA Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ-CA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted in electronic format (Wordperfect 9, MS Word 2000, or ASCII Text formats only, avoiding use of special characters) to: the above address or via e-mail to *smith.diane@epa.gov* . No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Copies of information in the record are available upon request from the contacts below. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information concerning the draft permits may be obtained from Ms. Diane Smith, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone

(214)665-2145. The supplemental fact sheet describing the modifications being noticed today, along with the originally proposed general permit and fact sheet documents, are available at *http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/npdes/sw/ms4/.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The originally proposed general permits and the modifications being proposed today cover storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems

(MS4s)meeting the definition of a “small municipal separate storm sewer system” at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(16) and designated under 40 CFR 122.32(a)(1) or 40 CFR 122.32(a)(2). An MS4 consists of a system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains) that collects storm water; is owned or operated by the United States, a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA; and discharges to waters of the United States. A small MS4 typically serves a population of less than 100,000. Only those small MS4s located in a Census-defined Urbanized Area or having been designated by the Director are required to apply for permits (see 40 CFR 122.32). Maps of Urbanized Areas and lists of cities and counties within them are available online at *http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/urbanmaps.cfm.* Subsequent to EPA Region 6's proposal of the general permits for small MS4s on September 9, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied EPA's petition for rehearing in litigation over EPA's storm water Phase II regulations. *Environmental Defense Center, et al.* v. *EPA,* No. 70014 & consolidated cases (9th Cir., Sept. 15, 2003). Plaintiffs in that litigation challenged the Phase II NPDES storm water regulations issued by EPA pursuant to Clean Water Act

(CWA)section 402(p)(6). Among other things, the Phase II regulations require NPDES permits for storm water discharges from certain MS4s for which NPDES permits were not required under CWA section 402(p)(2) and the Phase I NPDES storm water regulations. The regulations also require the newly regulated MS4s to develop, implement, and enforce a storm water management program containing, amongst other things, best management practices

(BMPs)identified by the discharger. The regulations authorize the use of general permits and require that these BMPs (as well as measurable goals associated with these BMPs) be identified in the Notice of Intent

(NOI)filed by the MS4 in seeking authorization under a general permit. Relying on the “traditional'' general permit model, the Agency did not require NOIs to be reviewed by the Agency, made available to the public for review and comment, or to be subject to public hearings. The Ninth Circuit held that EPA's failure to address these issues in establishing NOI requirements violated various provisions of CWA section 402, and remanded the Phase II regulations on three grounds related to the use of NPDES permits to authorize discharges from small MS4s:

(1)Public availability of Notices of Intent (NOIs),

(2)opportunity for public hearing, and

(3)Permitting Authority review of NOIs. On April 16, 2004, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management issued guidance to NPDES Permitting Authorities entitled “Implementing the Partial Remand of the Stormwater Phase II Regulations Regarding Notices of Intent & NPDES General Permitting for Phase II MS4s” (available at *http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/hanlonphase2apr14signed.pdf* ). This document provides guidance to permitting authorities on addressing the Court's partial remand when issuing general permits for small MS4s. Today's revisions to the originally proposed general permits are in response to the partial remand to the Phase II regulations and issues raised in the Court's decision and are consistent with EPA's Office of Wastewater Management Guidance. The public comment period on the proposed general permits is being reopened, in accordance with procedures at 40 CFR 124.14, for the limited purpose of accepting public comments on today's proposed changes to the draft permits. EPA's public comment and public hearing procedures may be found at 40 CFR 124.10 and 124.12 (48 FR 142664, April 1, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 38051, September 26, 1984). Following the end of the supplemental comment period, the Director will make a final permit decision and notice will be published in the **Federal Register** . Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 *et seq.* Dated: March 24, 2006. Miguel I. Flores, Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6. [FR Doc. E6-4844 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [Docket No. 06-05] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision [No. 2006-12] Joint Report: Differences in Accounting and Capital Standards Among the Federal Banking Agencies; Report to Congressional Committees AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The OCC, the Board, the FDIC, and the OTS (the Agencies) have prepared this report pursuant to section 37(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Section 37(c) requires the Agencies to jointly submit an annual report to the Committee on Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives and to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the United States Senate describing differences between the capital and accounting standards used by the Agencies. The report must be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *OCC:* Nancy Hunt, Risk Expert (202-874-4923), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. *Board:* John F. Connolly, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst (202-452-3621), Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20551. *FDIC:* Robert F. Storch, Chief Accountant (202-898-8906), Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. *OTS:* Michael D. Solomon, Senior Program Manager for Capital Policy (202-906-5654), Supervision Policy, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the report follows: Report to the Committee on Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives and to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the United States Senate Regarding Differences in Accounting and Capital Standards Among the Federal Banking Agencies Introduction The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS)(“the Federal banking agencies” or “the agencies”) must jointly submit an annual report to the Committee on Financial Services of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the U.S. Senate describing differences between the accounting and capital standards used by the agencies. The report must be published in the **Federal Register** . This report, which covers differences existing as of December 31, 2005, is the fourth joint annual report on differences in accounting and capital standards to be submitted pursuant to section 37(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831n(c)), as amended. Prior to the agencies' first joint annual report, section 37(c) required a separate report from each agency. Since the agencies filed their first reports on accounting and capital differences in 1990, the agencies have acted in concert to harmonize their accounting and capital standards and eliminate as many differences as possible. Section 303 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4803) also directs the agencies to work jointly to make uniform all regulations and guidelines implementing common statutory or supervisory policies. The results of these efforts must be “consistent with the principles of safety and soundness, statutory law and policy, and the public interest.” In recent years, the agencies have revised their capital standards to address changes in credit and certain other risk exposures within the banking system and to align the amount of capital institutions are required to hold more closely with the credit risks and certain other risks to which they are exposed. These revisions have been made in a uniform manner whenever possible and practicable to minimize interagency differences. While the differences in capital standards have diminished over time, a few differences remain. Some of the remaining capital differences are statutorily mandated. Others were significant historically but now no longer affect in a measurable way, either individually or in the aggregate, institutions supervised by the Federal banking agencies. In this regard, the OTS plans to eliminate two such de minimis differences during 2006 that have been fully discussed in previous joint annual reports ((i) covered assets and

(ii)pledged deposits, nonwithdrawable accounts, and certain certificates), and these differences have been excluded from this annual report. In addition to the specific differences in capital standards noted below, the agencies may have differences in how they apply certain aspects of their rules. These differences usually arise as a result of case-specific inquiries that have only been presented to one agency. Agency staffs seek to minimize these occurrences by coordinating responses to the fullest extent reasonably practicable. The Federal banking agencies have substantially similar capital adequacy standards. These standards employ a common regulatory framework that establishes minimum leverage and risk-based capital ratios for all banking organizations (banks, bank holding companies, and savings associations). The agencies view the leverage and risk-based capital requirements as minimum standards, and most institutions are expected to operate with capital levels well above the minimums, particularly those institutions that are expanding or experiencing unusual or high levels of risk. The OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC, under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, have developed uniform Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for all insured commercial banks and state-chartered savings banks. The OTS requires each OTS-supervised savings association to file the Thrift Financial Report (TFR). The reporting standards for recognition and measurement in the Call Reports and the TFR are consistent with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Thus, there are no significant differences in regulatory accounting standards for regulatory reports filed with the Federal banking agencies. Only one minor difference remains between the accounting standards of the OTS and those of the other federal banking agencies, and that difference relates to push-down accounting, as more fully explained below. Differences in Capital Standards Among the Federal Banking Agencies Financial Subsidiaries The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

(GLBA)establishes the framework for financial subsidiaries of banks. 1 GLBA amends the National Bank Act to permit national banks to conduct certain expanded financial activities through financial subsidiaries. Section 121(a) of the GLBA (12 U.S.C. 24a) imposes a number of conditions and requirements upon national banks that have financial subsidiaries, including specifying the treatment that applies for regulatory capital purposes. The statute requires that a national bank deduct from assets and tangible equity the aggregate amount of its equity investments in financial subsidiaries. The statute further requires that the financial subsidiary's assets and liabilities not be consolidated with those of the parent national bank for applicable capital purposes. 1 A national bank that has a financial subsidiary must satisfy a number of statutory requirements in addition to the capital deduction and deconsolidation requirements described in the text. The bank (and each of its depository institution affiliates) must be well capitalized and well managed. Asset size restrictions apply to the aggregate amount of assets of all of the bank's financial subsidiaries. Certain debt rating requirements apply, depending on the size of the national bank. The national bank is required to maintain policies and procedures to protect the bank from financial and operational risks presented by the financial subsidiary. It is also required to have policies and procedures to preserve the corporate separateness of the financial subsidiary and the bank's limited liability. Finally, transactions between the bank and its financial subsidiary generally must comply with the Federal Reserve Act's

(FRA)restrictions on affiliate transactions and the financial subsidiary is considered an affiliate of the bank for purposes of the anti-tying provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act. *See* 12 U.S.C. 5136a. State member banks may have financial subsidiaries subject to all of the same restrictions that apply to national banks. 2 State nonmember banks may also have financial subsidiaries, but they are subject only to a subset of the statutory requirements that apply to national banks and state member banks. 3 Finally, national banks, state member banks, and state nonmember banks may not establish or acquire a financial subsidiary or commence a new activity in a financial subsidiary if the bank, or any of its insured depository institution affiliates, has received a less than satisfactory rating as of its most recent examination under the Community Reinvestment Act. 4 2 *See* 12 U.S.C. 335 (state member banks subject to the “same conditions and limitations” that apply to national banks that hold financial subsidiaries). 3 The applicable statutory requirements for state nonmember banks are as follows. The bank (and each of its insured depository institution affiliates) must be well capitalized. The bank must comply with the capital deduction and deconsolidation requirements. It must also satisfy the requirements for policies and procedures to protect the bank from financial and operational risks and to preserve corporate separateness and limited liability for the bank. Further, transactions between the bank and a subsidiary that would be classified as a financial subsidiary generally are subject to the affiliate transactions restrictions of the FRA. *See* 12 U.S.C. 1831w. 4 *See* 12 U.S.C. 1841( *l* )(2). The OCC, the FDIC, and the FRB adopted final rules implementing their respective provisions of Section 121 of GLBA for national banks in March 2000, for state nonmember banks in January 2001, and for state member banks in August 2001. GLBA did not provide new authority to OTS-supervised savings associations to own, hold, or operate financial subsidiaries, as defined. Subordinate Organizations Other Than Financial Subsidiaries Banks supervised by the OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC generally consolidate all significant majority-owned subsidiaries other than financial subsidiaries for regulatory capital purposes. This practice assures that capital requirements are related to the aggregate credit (and, where applicable, market) risks to which the banking organization is exposed. For subsidiaries other than financial subsidiaries that are not consolidated on a line-for-line basis for financial reporting purposes, joint ventures, and associated companies, the parent banking organization's investment in each such subordinate organization is, for risk-based capital purposes, deducted from capital or assigned to the 100 percent risk-weight category, depending upon the circumstances. The FRB's and the FDIC's rules also permit the banking organization to consolidate the investment on a pro rata basis in appropriate circumstances. These options for handling unconsolidated subsidiaries, joint ventures, and associated companies for purposes of determining the capital adequacy of the parent banking organization provide the agencies with the flexibility necessary to ensure that institutions maintain capital levels that are commensurate with the actual risks involved. Under the OTS's capital regulations, a statutorily mandated distinction is drawn between subsidiaries, which generally are majority-owned, that are engaged in activities that are permissible for national banks and those that are engaged in activities “impermissible” for national banks. Where subsidiaries engage in activities that are impermissible for national banks, the OTS requires the deduction of the parent's investment in these subsidiaries from the parent's assets and capital. If a subsidiary's activities are permissible for a national bank, that subsidiary's assets are generally consolidated with those of the parent on a line-for-line basis. If a subordinate organization, other than a subsidiary, engages in impermissible activities, the OTS will generally deduct investments in and loans to that organization. 5 If such a subordinate organization engages solely in permissible activities, the OTS may, depending upon the nature and risk of the activity, either assign investments in and loans to that organization to the 100 percent risk-weight category or require full deduction of the investments and loans. 5 *See* 12 CFR 559.2 for the OTS's definition of subordinate organization. Collateralized Transactions The FRB and the OCC assign a zero percent risk weight to claims collateralized by cash on deposit in the institution or by securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, U.S. Government agencies, or the central governments of other countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OCC and the FRB rules require the collateral to be marked to market daily and a positive margin of collateral protection to be maintained daily. The FRB requires qualifying claims to be fully collateralized, while the OCC rule permits partial collateralization. The FDIC and the OTS assign a zero percent risk weight to claims on qualifying securities firms that are collateralized by cash on deposit in the institution or by securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, U.S. Government agencies, or other OECD central governments. The FDIC and the OTS accord a 20 percent risk weight to such claims on other parties. Noncumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock Under the Federal banking agencies' capital standards, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock is a component of Tier 1 capital. The capital standards of the OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC require noncumulative perpetual preferred stock to give the issuer the option to waive the payment of dividends and to provide that waived dividends neither accumulate to future periods nor represent a contingent claim on the issuer. As a result of these requirements, if a bank supervised by the OCC, the FRB, or the FDIC issues perpetual preferred stock and is required to pay dividends in a form other than cash, e.g., stock, when cash dividends are not or cannot be paid, the bank does not have the option to waive or eliminate dividends, and the stock would not qualify as noncumulative. If an OTS-supervised savings association issues perpetual preferred stock that requires the payment of dividends in the form of stock when cash dividends are not paid, the stock may, subject to supervisory approval, qualify as noncumulative. Equity Securities of Government-Sponsored Enterprises The FRB, the FDIC, and the OTS apply a 100 percent risk weight to equity securities of government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), other than the 20 percent risk weighting of Federal Home Loan Bank stock held by banking organizations as a condition of membership. The OCC applies a 20 percent risk weight to all GSE equity securities. Limitation on Subordinated Debt and Limited-Life Preferred Stock The OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC limit the amount of subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock that may be treated as part of Tier 2 capital to 50 percent of Tier 1 capital. The OTS does not prescribe such a restriction. The OTS does, however, limit the amount of Tier 2 capital to 100 percent of Tier 1 capital, as do the other agencies. In addition, for banking organizations supervised by the OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC, at the beginning of each of the last five years of the life of a subordinated debt or limited-life preferred stock instrument, the amount that is eligible for inclusion in Tier 2 capital is reduced by 20 percent of the original amount of that instrument (net of redemptions). The OTS provides thrifts the option of using either the discounting approach used by the other federal banking agencies, or an approach which, during the last seven years of the instrument's life, allows for the full inclusion of all such instruments, provided that the aggregate amount of such instruments maturing in any one year does not exceed 20 percent of the thrift's total capital. Tangible Capital Requirement Savings associations supervised by the OTS, by statute, must satisfy a 1.5 percent minimum tangible capital requirement. Other subsequent statutory and regulatory changes, however, imposed higher capital standards rendering it unlikely, if not impossible, for the 1.5 percent tangible capital requirement to function as a meaningful regulatory trigger. This statutory tangible capital requirement does not apply to institutions supervised by the OCC, the FRB, or the FDIC. Market Risk Rules In 1996, the OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC adopted rules requiring banks and bank holding companies with significant exposure to market risk to measure and maintain capital to support that risk. The OTS did not adopt a market risk rule because no OTS-supervised savings association engaged in the threshold level of trading activity addressed by the other agencies' rules. As the nature of many savings associations' activities has changed since 1996, market risk has become an increasingly more significant risk factor to consider in the capital management process. Accordingly, the OTS plans to shortly propose a market risk rule substantially similar to those of the other banking agencies. Differences in Accounting Standards Among the Federal Banking Agencies Push-Down Accounting Push-down accounting is the establishment of a new accounting basis for a depository institution in its separate financial statements as a result of the institution becoming substantially wholly owned. Under push-down accounting, when a depository institution is acquired in a purchase, yet retains its separate corporate existence, the assets and liabilities of the acquired institution are restated to their fair values as of the acquisition date. These values, including any goodwill, are reflected in the separate financial statements of the acquired institution, as well as in any consolidated financial statements of the institution's parent. The OCC, the FRB, and the FDIC require the use of push-down accounting for regulatory reporting purposes when an institution's voting stock becomes at least 95 percent owned by an investor or a group of investors acting collaboratively. This approach is generally consistent with accounting interpretations issued by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The OTS requires the use of push-down accounting when an institution's voting stock becomes at least 90 percent owned by an investor or investor group. Dated: March 16, 2006. John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 28, 2006. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC, this 29th day of March, 2006. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Dated: February 24, 2006. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John M. Reich, Director. [FR Doc. 06-3179 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

CFR

U.S. Code