Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

15,673 words·~71 min read·/register/2006/04/12/06-3509·

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HO-OPP-2006-0251; FRL-7771-3] Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol (THFA); Proposed Action on Tolerance Exemption AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document proposes under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(e)(1) to revoke the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the inert ingredient tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol

(THFA)(CAS Reg. No. 97-99-4) under 40 CFR 180.910 because it does not meet the safety requirements of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). While EPA has determined that dietary risks from use of THFA exceed the Agency's level of concern, limited uses of THFA may be permitted. Therefore, EPA is also proposing to establish for THFA an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1263 that includes use limitations. The regulatory action proposed in this document contributes toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act

(FQPA)of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. The regulatory action proposed in this document pertains to the proposed revocation of one tolerance which would be counted as tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket identification number

(ID)No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0251, by one of the following methods: • *http:/ /www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* . Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Hand Delivery* . Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0251. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is

(703)305-5805. 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- OPP-2006-0251. 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.regulatioris.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 regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website 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 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.* *Docket* . All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov/* or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Angulo, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 703-306-0404; e-mail address: *angulo.karen@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. *Tips for preparing your comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading **Federal Register** date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background and Statutory Findings A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is now in the process of reassessing all inert ingredient exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance (“tolerance exemptions”) established prior to August 2, 1996, as required by the FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the FQPA. Inert ingredient chemicals must meet a high safety standard in order to merit an exemption from the numerical residue limitations that are imposed in a tolerance. 1. In evaluating the inert ingredient THFA, the Agency has determined that dietary risks of concern may result from the use of THFA under the current tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.910, which allows an unlimited amount of THFA to be applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. The hazard characterization of THFA shows effects of concern. Consistent systemic effects from repeated dermal and oral exposure to THFA include decreased body weight and body weight gain. Effects were consistent over species and routes of exposure. While no neurotoxicity studies were performed, whole body spasms were reported in the subchronic inhalation study . Developmental and reproductive effects of concern have been identified. Alterations in the male reproductive system from subchronic exposure to THFA also indicates a concern for alterations in the developing male reproductive system. The available data show there is evidence of increased susceptibility (both quantitative and qualitative) of the offspring after *in utero* exposure to THFA, including decreased fetal body weights. The screening level dietary exposure assessment showed that the risks were above the Agency's level of concern for the general population and the most highly exposed sub-population (children 1 to 2 years old). Because of these risk levels, the unlimited exemption from a tolerance as is currently granted to THFA under 40 CFR 180.910 does not meet the safety requirements of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the existing THFA tolerance exemption, revocation to be effective 18 months after publication of the final rule. The assessment documents for THFA are available electronically under EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0251 at *http://www.regulations.gov* . 2. EPA has identified uses of THFA that do not pose risks of concern. EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance exemption under § 180.1263 that permits:

(1)Use as a seed treatment,

(2)Application at the time of planting,

(3)Application to cotton, and,

(4)Use in herbicides with one application to wheat and barley prior to the pre-boot stage. These limitations significantly reduce the number of times that THFA may be applied per season - often to one application only -- and, therefore, reduce the potential for dietary exposures below the Agency's level of concern. Contributions to surface/drinking water are not anticipated from the use of THFA-containing pesticide products under the proposed use limitations considering THFA's physical-chemical properties and biodegradation potential in the environment. No residential risks of concern are anticipated at this time for the new tolerance exemption. i. *Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity.* Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to THFA and any other substances and THFA does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that THFA has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at *http://www.epa.gov/* pesticides/cumulative/. ii. *Determination of safety for U.S. population, infants and children* . Considering that dietary (food and drinking water) and residential risks are not of concern under the use limitations of the new exemption, EPA finds that exempting THFA with the limitations in § 180.1263 will be safe for the general population including infants and children. iii. *Analytical enforcement methodology.* An analytical method is not required for the new tolerance exemption for enforcement purposes because the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. B. What is the Agency's Authority for taking this Action? A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore “adulterated” under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. C. When do these Actions Become Effective? EPA is proposing to revoke THFA's current tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.910, effective 18 months after the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with pesticide products containing the inert ingredient THFA, and in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticide chemicals in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:

(1)The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and

(2)the residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the pesticide was applied to such food. EPA is proposing that the establishment of a new tolerance exemption under § 180.1263 for use of THFA will become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . Applications for new pesticide products that include THFA will be subject to the limitations of the new tolerance exemption as of the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment? By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances and exemptions from tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. This document proposes to place an 18 month expiration date on one inert ingredient tolerance exemption, which will be counted in a final rule as a tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996. III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations? The tolerance revocation in this proposal is not discriminatory and is designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits

(MRLs)in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at *http://www.epa.gov/* . On the Home Page select “Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ **Federal Register** --Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/* . IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This proposed rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget

(0MB)has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to 0MB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or 0MB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Specifically, the Agency has concluded in a memorandum dated May 25, 2001 that for import tolerance revocation there is a negligible joint probability of certain defined conditions holding simultaneously which would indicate an RFA/SBREFA concern and require more analysis. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects 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.” This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 6, 2006. Donald R. Stubbs, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: PART 180 —[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.910 is amended by revising the entry for Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol in the table to read as follows: § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses * * * * * * * Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol

(THFA)(CAS Reg. No 97-99-4) Expires [ *insert date 18 months after date of publication of the Final rule in the* **Federal Register** ] Solvent/cosolvent * * * * * * * 3. Section 180.1263 is added to subpart D to read as follows: § 180.1263 Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA, CAS Reg. No. 97-99-4) is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural commodities when used in accordance with good agricultural practices as an inert ingredient applied only:

(a)For use as a seed treatment.

(b)For application at the time of planting.

(c)For use on cotton.

(d)For use in herbicides with one application to wheat and barley prior to the pre-boot stage. [FR Doc. E6-5399 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 arn] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-611; MB Docket No. 06-59, RM-11319] Radio Broadcasting Services; Gravette, AR and Southwest City, MO AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document sets forth a proposal to amend the FM Table of Allotments, section 73.202(b) of the Commission's rules. The Audio Division requests comment on a petition filed by KERM, Inc. pursuant to section 1.420(i) of the Commission's rules. Petitioner proposes to change the community of license for Station KURM-FM from Southwest City, Missouri, to Gravette, Arkansas, and to change the FM Table of Allotments by deleting Channel 262A at Southwest City, Missouri, and by adding Channel 262A at Gravette, Arkansas, as the community's first local aural broadcast service. The proposed coordinates for Channel 262A at Gravette, Arkansas, are 36-25-54 NL and 94-30-46 WL. The allotment will require a site restriction of 5.4 km (3.4 miles) west of Gravette. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 8, 2006, and reply comments on or before May 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for the petitioner as follows: Dan J. Alpert, Esq., The Law Office of Dan J. Alpert, 2120 N. 21st Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau

(202)418-7072. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 06-59; adopted March 15, 2006, and released March 17, 2006. The full text of this Commission document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,

(800)378-3160, or via the company's Web site, *http://www.bcpiweb.com* . This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all *ex parte* contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. *See* 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible *ex parte* contacts. For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, *see* 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arkansas, is amended by adding Gravette, Channel 262A. 3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Missouri, is amended by removing Southwest City, Channel 262A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-5110 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-612; MB Docket No. 05-155; RM-11226] Radio Broadcasting Services; Denver City, TX AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. SUMMARY: At the request of Ramar Communications II, Ltd, licensee of Station KSTQ-FM, Plainview, Texas, the site restriction for Channel *248C2 is modified to accommodate Ramar Communications' pending application to modify Station KSTQ-FM's operation. The site for Channel *248C2 is modified to Petitioner's suggested site 13.6 kilometers (8.5 miles) west of Denver City. The modified coordinates for Channel *248C2 at Denver City are 32-55-57 NL and 102-58-10 WL. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order,* MB Docket No. 05-155, adopted March 15, 2005, and released March 17, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or via e-mail *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* Federal Register This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission is therefore not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule (70 FR 19400, Apr. 13, 2005) was dismissed. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-5035 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 48 CFR Part 225 RIN 0750-AF23 Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Buy American Act Exemption for Commercial Information Technology (DFARS Case 2005-D011) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement provisions of annual appropriations acts that authorize an exemption from the Buy American Act for the acquisition of commercial information technology. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before June 12, 2006 to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2005-D011, using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *dfars@osd.mil* . Include DFARS Case 2005-D011 in the subject line of the message. • Fax:

(703)602-0350. • Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402. Comments received generally will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams,

(703)602-0328. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Section 535 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199); Section 517 of Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447); and Section 717 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-115) provide an exemption from the Buy American Act for the acquisition of information technology that is a commercial item. This proposed rule amends the acquisition procedures in DFARS part 225 to reflect the exemption. The proposed rule applies the same exemption to the Balance of Payments Program policy in DFARS subpart 225.75, since the Balance of Payments Program is an extension of the Buy American Act restrictions to acquisitions of supplies for overseas use. The proposed rule will eliminate the need for issuance of annual deviations to address the exemption. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603. The analysis is summarized as follows: The objective of the proposed rule is to promote Government access to commercial information technology, by eliminating the application of domestic source requirements to the acquisition of such information technology. The proposed rule will apply to entities interested in providing commercial information technology products to DoD. Such entities will no longer need to track the origin of components to determine if an information technology product complies with Buy American Act requirements. As a result, manufacturers of domestic components of information technology products may face increased competition from manufacturers of foreign components. There are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the objectives of the applicable statutes. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2005-D011. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed rule will reduce the information collection requirements that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, under Clearance Number 0704-0229, for use through May 31, 2007. Under this clearance, 36,175 annual burden hours have been approved for the provision at DFARS 252.225-7000, Buy American Act-Balance of Payments Program Certificate; and 1,000 annual burden hours have been approved for the provision at DFARS 252.225-7035, Buy American Act-Free Trade Agreements-Balance of Payments Program Certificate. DoD estimates that the proposed rule will result in a 5 percent reduction in the burden hours for the provision at DFARS 252.225-7000 (1,800 hours) and a 50 percent reduction in the burden hours for the provision at DFARS 252.225-7035 (500 hours). List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR part 225 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 225 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. 2. Section 225.1101 is amended by revising paragraph (2)(iii), paragraph (10)(i) introductory text, and paragraph (10)(ii) to read as follows: 225.1101 Acquisition of supplies.

(2)* * *

(iii)An exception to the Buy American Act or Balance of Payments Program applies (see FAR 25.103, 225.103, and 225.7501); or (10)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (10)(ii) of this section, use the clause at 252.225-7036, Buy American Act—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program, instead of the clause at FAR 52.225-3, Buy American Act—Free Trade Agreements—Israeli Trade Act, in solicitations and contracts for the items listed at 225.401-70, when the estimated value equals or exceeds $25,000, but is less than $193,000, and a Free Trade Agreement applies to the acquisition.

(ii)Do not use the clause if—

(A)Purchase from foreign sources is restricted (see 225.401(a)(2)), unless the contracting officer anticipates a waiver of the restriction; or

(B)Acquiring information technology that is a commercial item, using fiscal year 2004 or subsequent funds (Section 535 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199), and the same provision in subsequent appropriations acts). 3. Section 225.7501 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and

(v)and adding paragraph (a)(2)(vi) to read as follows: 225.7501 Policy.

(a)* * *

(2)* * *

(iv)An industrial gas;

(v)A brand drug specified by the Defense Medical Materiel Board; or

(vi)Information technology that is a commercial item, using fiscal year 2004 or subsequent funds (Section 535 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199), and the same provision in subsequent appropriations acts); [FR Doc. E6-5281 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 RIN 0750-AF22 Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Definitions of Component and Domestic Manufacture (DFARS Case 2005-D010) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify the definitions of “component” and “domestic manufacture” as they relate to policy on foreign acquisition. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before June 12, 2006 to be considered in the formation of the final rule. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2005-D010, using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *dfars@osd.mil.* Include DFARS Case 2005-D010 in the subject line of the message. • Fax:

(703)602-0328. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background This proposed rule amends DFARS Part 225 and associated provisions and clauses to clarify the distinction between foreign acquisition policies that apply only to top-level components of end products and those that apply to both top-level and lower-tier components of end products. As used in this background discussion, “top-level components” are those components that are incorporated directly into the end product; and “lower-tier components” are components that are incorporated into a component of the end product. The general definition of “component” in FAR 2.101 is “any item supplied to the Government as part of an end item or of another component.” Therefore, for general use, the term includes both top-level components and lower-tier components. For purposes of determining whether a product is a domestic end product under the Buy American Act or the Balance of Payments Program, the term “component” is defined in FAR 25.003 to include only “an article, material, or supply incorporated directly into an end product or construction material” (i.e., only top-level components). This definition would also be applicable to any other situation in which evaluation of the end product is based on the value of the components, similar to that under the Buy American Act (e.g., to determine a qualifying country end product or whether anchor chain is a domestic end product). In broadly applying these concepts to DFARS Part 225, “component” has been defined to apply only to top-level components, except in Subpart 225.70, where the term “component” includes components at all tiers. However, there are some requirements of Part 225 other than those in 225.70 that are not based on or are not similar to the Buy American Act, and there are some requirements in 225.70 that should be treated as similar to the Buy American Act. Therefore, the definitions of “component” included in the proposed rule reflect the correct applicability of foreign acquisition policies as follows: • 225.900-70 and 252.225-7013, Duty-Free Entry—Duty-free entry is not related to evaluation of domestic products under the Buy American Act and should apply to qualifying country components at any tier. • 252.225-7019, Restriction on Anchor and Mooring Chain—The requirement that the cost of components manufactured in the United States exceed 50 percent of the total cost of components is similar to the Buy American Act component test, in which only top-level components are considered. Therefore, the definition restricting application to top-level components should apply. • 252.225-7025, Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings—The requirement to acquire forging items that are of domestic manufacture applies to any forging item, whether purchased as an end item or as a component at any tier. In addition, the proposed rule eliminates references to the DoD Industrial Preparedness Production Planning Program, at 225.7005-1 and in the definition of “domestic manufacture” at 252.225-7025, since DoD no longer has an Industrial Preparedness Production Planning Program. This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* , because the proposed rule updates and clarifies DFARS terminology, but makes no significant change to DoD acquisition policy. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2005-D010. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 Government procurement. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 225 and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1. PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 2. Section 225.900-70 is added to read as follows: 225.900-70 Definition. *Component,* as used in this subpart, means any item supplied to the Government as part of an end product or of another component. 3. Section 225.7001 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (b); b. By redesignating paragraphs

(c)and

(d)as paragraphs

(d)and

(e)respectively; and c. By adding a new paragraph

(c)to read as follows: 225.7001 Definitions.

(b)*Component,* other than bearing components, is defined in the clauses at 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities, and 252.225-7016, Restriction on Acquisition of Ball and Roller Bearings, except that for use in 225.7007, the term has the meaning given in the clause at 252.225-7019, Restriction on Acquisition of Anchor and Mooring Chain.

(c)*End product* is defined in the clause at 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities. 225.7005-1 [Amended] 4. Section 225.7005-1 is amended by removing paragraph

(a)and redesignating paragraphs

(b)and

(c)as paragraphs

(a)and

(b)respectively. 5. Section 225.7101 is revised to read as follows: 225.7101 Definitions. *Component* and *domestic manufacture,* as used in this subpart, are defined in the clause at 252.225-7025, Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings. PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 6. Section 252.225-7000 is amended by revising the clause date and paragraph

(a)to read as follows: 252.225-7000 Buy American Act—Balance of Payments Program Certificate. Buy American Act—Balance of Payments Program Certificate (XXX 2006)

(a)*Definitions. Component, domestic end product, foreign end product, qualifying country,* and *qualifying country* end product have the meanings given in the Buy American Act and Balance of Payments Program clause of this solicitation. 7. Section 252.225-7013 is amended as follows: a. By revising the clause date; b. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) through

(3)as paragraphs (a)(2) through

(4)respectively; and c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: 252.225-7013 Duty-Free Entry. Duty-Free Entry (XXX 2006)

(a)* * *

(1)*Component* means any item supplied to the Government as part of an end product or of another component. 8. Section 252.225-7019 is amended as follows: a. By revising the clause date; b. By redesignating paragraphs

(a)through

(c)as paragraphs

(b)through

(d)respectively; c. By adding a new paragraph (a); and d. By revising newly designated paragraph

(d)to read as follows: 252.225-7019 Restriction on Acquisition of Anchor and Mooring Chain. Restriction on Acquisition of Anchor and Mooring Chain (XXX 2006)

(a)*Definition. Component,* as used in this clause, means an article, material, or supply incorporated directly into an end product or construction material.

(d)The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all subcontracts for items containing welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain, four inches or less in diameter. 9. Section 252.225-7025 is amended as follows: a. By revising the clause date; b. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) and

(2)as paragraphs (a)(2) and

(3)respectively; c. By adding a new paragraph (a)(1); and d. By revising newly designated paragraph (a)(2) and *paragraph

(b)to read as follows:* 252.225-7025 Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings. Restriction on Acquisition of Forgings (XXX 2006)

(a)* * *

(1)*Component* means any item supplied to the Government as part of an end product or of another component.

(2)*Domestic manufacture* means manufactured in the United States, its outlying areas, or Canada.

(b)End products and their components delivered under this contract shall contain forging items that are of domestic manufacture only. 10. Section 252.225-7035 is amended by revising the clause date and paragraph

(a)to read as follows: 252.225-7035 Buy American Act—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program Certificate. Buy American Act—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program Certificate (XXX 2006)

(a)*Definitions. Component, domestic end product, end product of Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, or Singapore, foreign end product, qualifying country end product,* and *United States,* as used in this provision, have the meanings given in the Buy American Act—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program clause of this solicitation. [FR Doc. E6-5282 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 91 RIN 1018-AU56 Revision of Federal Duck Stamp Contest Regulations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, or we), propose to revise the regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest [also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest (contest)]. Our proposed amendments would raise the contest entry fee by $25, to $125; update contest opening and entry deadline dates, locations, and mail and Internet site information; specify penalties for contestants who contact judges or copy designs from the Internet; relieve restrictions on our ability to announce judges' names; clarify ambiguous language in our regulations concerning matting of entries and minimum age of entrants; and update or correct technical advising for the contest, the common names and spelling of species on our list of contest design subjects, and minor grammar errors. DATES: To ensure our consideration, we must receive your comments on this proposal by May 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods: 1. Federal Duck Stamp Web site: *http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: *duckstamps@fws.gov.* 3. Fax: 703-358-2009 to Chief, Federal Duck Stamp Office. 4. U.S. Mail: Chief, Federal Duck Stamp Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4070, Arlington, VA 22203-1622. 5. Hand Delivery: Federal Duck Stamp Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4070, Arlington, VA. 6. Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For more information on requirements for submitting or viewing comments, see “Public Comments Solicited” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Fisher, Chief, Federal Duck Stamp Office,

(703)358-2000 (phone), *duckstamps@fws.gov* (e-mail), or

(703)358-2009 (fax). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We propose to revise the regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest [also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest (contest)]. Our proposed amendments would raise the contest entry fee by $25, to $125; update contest opening and entry deadline dates, locations, and mail and Internet site information, so that our regulations would be brought up to date with our current and new practices. They would also specify penalties for contestants who contact judges or copy designs from the Internet; relieve restrictions on our ability to announce judges' names; clarify ambiguous language in our regulations concerning matting of entries and minimum age of entrants; and update or correct contest technical advisor information, the treatment and spelling of species' common names on our contest design subject list, and minor grammar errors. We do not believe the proposed changes have much impact on the body of the regulations, and, except for the plagiarism penalty, the increase in the entry fee, and the penalty for contacting judges, they relieve restrictions on the public, clarify existing and new practices, or make corrections. Therefore we believe 30 days will allow the public sufficient time to review and respond to our proposed changes. The public will benefit from having final regulations in place well in advance of our June 2006 contest opening date. Background History of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp (Duck Stamp) Program On March 16, 1934, Congress passed and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, it required all waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to buy a stamp annually. The revenue generated was originally earmarked for the Department of Agriculture, but 5 years later was transferred to the Department of the Interior and the Service. We are legislatively mandated to use the revenue first to administer the Duck Stamp permit program and contest, and secondly for conservation, to buy or lease waterfowl sanctuaries. In the years since its enactment, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Today, some 1.8 million stamps are sold each year, and as of 2004, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $700 million for the preservation of more than 5.2 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. Numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have similarly prospered because of habitat protection made possible by the program. An estimated one-third of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter in refuges preserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, the protected wetlands help dissipate storms, purify water supplies, store flood water, and nourish fish hatchlings important for sport and commercial fishermen. History of the Duck Stamp Contest The first Federal Duck Stamp was designed at President Roosevelt's request by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the *Des Moines Register* and a noted hunter and wildlife conservationist. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists were asked to submit designs. The first Federal Duck Stamp Contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter, and 65 artists submitted a total of 88 design entries. Since then, the contest has attracted large numbers of entrants, and it remains the only art competition of its kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. The Secretary of the Interior appoints a panel of noted art, waterfowl, and philatelic authorities to select each year's winning design. Winners receive no compensation for the work, except a pane of their stamps, but winners may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors. Proposed Changes The regulations governing the contest are at 50 CFR part 91. Our proposed amendments raise the entry fee from $100 to $125, to help offset the rising cost of administering the contest, update the contest regulations concerning opening and entry deadline dates, making the new dates earlier than the ones currently specified in part 91, and specify penalties for contestants who contact judges. These revisions also remove a restriction governing our ability to announce names of judges. To update our regulations to reflect the ascendance of Internet technology, we also now expressly prohibit contestants from copying designs from the Internet. Although in the past we have held the contest solely in Washington, DC, from 2005 on, we have begun and plan to continue to hold the contest in a different U.S. location each year. Therefore, we will update contest location information. These changes also clarify ambiguous language in our regulations concerning matting of entries and minimum age of entrants. These amendments also update Service mail and Internet site information; update the common names and spellings of species on our list of potential contest design subjects; update the regulations to reflect a change in technical advising for the contest; and correct minor grammar errors. Service Mailing Addresses; Location of Contest We correct the address of the Duck Stamp Office as it appears at § 91.1(b) and § 91.16(b), because the office is no longer in Washington, DC, but is now located in Arlington, VA. The current regulations at § 91.22 reflect the long tradition of the contest being held in Washington, DC, at the Main Interior Building auditorium. However, the 2006 contest will be the second contest to take place outside of Washington, DC. We plan to hold future duck stamp contests in various U.S. locations corresponding to flyways. Therefore, we are removing the sentence from § 91.22 that states that the contest is held in the Main Interior Building auditorium. Holding the contest in various geographic locations will help attract more attention to the program, hopefully increasing the number of contest entries and giving a greater number of people throughout the U.S. access to the contest. The overall goal is to increase duck stamp stales to gain additional funds with which to purchase waterfowl habitat. The 2005 Duck Stamp Contest was the first contest ever held outside Washington, DC and took place at the Memphis College of Arts, in Memphis, TN. The 2006 contest will also be held in Memphis, at the same location. Updating Species' Common Names or Spellings Section 91.4 contains our list of eligible species. For each year's contest, we choose five or fewer species from the list; one or more of those species (or a combination thereof; see § 91.14) are the only acceptable subjects for entries during that contest year. We announce each year's eligible species in a **Federal Register** notice, as well as in other materials we prepare and make available. Our list in § 91.4 contains scientific and common names accepted by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU; *http://www.aou.org/;* see also the AOU Check-list at *http://www.aou.org/checklist/birdlist46.pdf,* our standard reference on taxonomy, nomenclature, and capitalization). Since we first wrote our regulations, the AOU has changed the common name for the species *Clangula hyemalis,* from “Oldsquaw” to “Long-tailed Duck.” For Snow Goose ( *Chen caerulescens* ), we add the clarification that both “white” and “blue” morphs are on the list in § 91.4. We make these changes, along with spelling corrections of some other names, to our list in § 91.4 so that this list will reflect the most current scientific and common names. Contest Opening and Entry Deadline Dates We are correcting § 91.11 of the regulations to bring the dates of the contest into alignment with current practices. The contest is now being held in early fall. Therefore, we now open the contest and start accepting entries on June 1 of each year, instead of July 1, as currently specified in the regulations. If you wish to enter a design in the contest, you must postmark your packaged entry no later than midnight on August 15. The current regulations give this deadline as September 15, but it is no longer correct. When we first wrote our regulations and codified them in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Internet was not as widely used as it is today. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to add to § 91.11(c) that you can obtain the most up-to-date contest information by viewing the Web site *http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps* or by calling

(703)358-2000. Increase in Contest Entry Fee; Clarification of Minimum Age of Entrants We propose to raise the contest entry fee from $100 to $125 (§ 91.12), to help offset the rising cost of administering the contest. This modest increase is our first since 1996. It will help us continue to improve the contest. We also propose to change the language specifying minimum age of contest entrants so that the minimum age will remain 18 no matter when the contest begins. Clarification of Entry Format Requirements We are revising our regulations concerning contest entry format to more specifically guide entrants on proper matting procedures. In the past, some entrants have used glue to affix matting to their pictures, or have used other incorrect practices. You must not permanently affix matting to your picture, because if you later sell your picture, someone who has bought it might want to put it in another mat for framing. However, it is best to present your entry for the contest with matting affixed to the front of it, because judges will be judging your entry as it appears with matting—i.e., the judges do not look at extra painting that may lie beneath the matting. We are revising our regulations at § 91.13 to say that you must affix matting to your picture with white or clear tape that can be removed later. Preventing Internet Plagiarism; Including Noneligible Species in Designs Existing § 91.14 specifies that “an entry design may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs.” We now update this section to add that an entry design may not be copied or duplicated from images in any format on the Internet. This section also explains that a live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible species must be the dominant feature of the design, but that the design may depict other appropriate things such as hunting dogs, as long as the eligible bird or birds are in the foreground and center of attention We propose to add that appropriate noneligible bird species are also allowed to appear in the background of the design. We have been verbally advising entrants that noneligible bird species are allowed in the background of designs; therefore, we simply want to codify the practice we have been following. Penalties for Contestants Who Contact Judges; Broadening the Judge Selection Process We are amending § 91.21 to add penalties for contestants who contact judges before or during the contest. The penalty will be disqualification from that year's contest. Also, that person will be prohibited from entering the following 3 contests. Thus, the person would be prohibited from entering a total of 4 contests. In this same section, we are removing a restriction governing our selection of judges by removing from § 91.21(a) the stipulation that we will announce judges' names on the first day of the contest. This change allows us to announce our judges prior to the start of each year's contest, rather than waiting until the contest actually starts, and thereby allows us to publicize the contest more widely. Technical Advising for the Contest In our current regulations at § 91.24, we state that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing analyzes contest finalists' entries and advises us of any serious anatomical problems or design problems from the perspective of an engraver. However, since we wrote those regulations, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has ceased production of stamps. Therefore, we are revising § 91.24 to note that our technical advisor is now the U.S. Postal Service. Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 1. This rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. 2. This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The rule deals solely with the Federal Duck Stamp Contest. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating this endeavor. 3. This rule does not alter budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients. There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs associated with the regulation of the Federal Duck Stamp Contest. 4. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule is primarily a reorganization and clarification of existing regulations. New provisions proposed in the rule are in compliance with other laws, policies, and regulations. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The changes we propose are intended primarily to clarify the requirements for the contest. In addition, these changes do not affect the information collected These changes will affect individuals, not businesses or other small entities as defined in the RFA. The fee increase to $125 per entrant from $100 per entrant represents a $25.00 total increase per entrant. In recent years we have received an average of 250 entries per year. If this average remains constant, then approximately $6,250.00 is the estimated annual increase to the public to participate in the program. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: 1. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 2. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. 3. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) is not required. Takings (E.O. 12630) In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. Federalism (E.O. 13132) In accordance with E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. A federalism assessment is not required. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not contain new or revised information collections for which Office of Management and Budget approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 *et seq.* ) is therefore not required. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects. Energy Supply, Distribution or Use On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule proposes to revise the current regulations in 50 CFR part 91 that govern the duck stamp contest. This proposed rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Clarity of This Regulation E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: 1. Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? 2. Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity? 3. Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, and so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? 4. Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? 5. Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful toward your understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address: *Exsec@ios.doi.gov.* Public Comments Solicited We are asking the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party to comment on this rule so that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Comments will become part of the Administrative Record for this rulemaking action. You may inspect comments at the hand-delivery address (given in the ADDRESSES section) during normal business hours. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods listed under ADDRESSES . Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: 1018-AU56” and your name and return U.S. mail address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at

(703)358-2000. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 91 Hunting, Wildlife. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Accordingly, we propose to amend part 91, subchapter G of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 91—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 718j; 31 U.S.C. 9701. 2. Amend § 91.1(b) by revising the second sentence and adding a third sentence to read as follows: § 91.1 Purpose of regulations.

(a)* * *

(b)* * * A copy of the regulations, along with the Reproduction Rights Agreement and Display and Participation Agreement, may be requested from the Federal Duck Stamp Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr. MBSP-4070, Arlington, VA 22203-1622. These documents can also be downloaded from our Web site: *http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/.* 3. Amend § 91.2 by revising the definition of Display and participation agreement to read as follows: § 91.2 Definitions. *Display and participation agreement* —a document that each contestant must complete, sign, and submit with the entry. The signed agreement allows the Service to display the entry at various locations for promotional purposes, and requires the artist to participate in events on behalf of the Federal Duck Stamp Program. 4. Revise § 91.4 to read as follows: § 91.4 Eligible species. Five or fewer of the species listed below will be identified as eligible each year; those eligible species will be provided to each contestant with the information provided in § 91.1.

(a)Whistling-Ducks.

(1)Fulvous Whistling-Duck ( *Dendrocygna bicolor* )

(2)Black-bellied Whistling-Duck ( *Dendrocygna autumnalis* )

(b)Swans.

(1)Trumpeter Swan ( *Cygnus buccinator* )

(2)Tundra Swan ( *Cygnus columbianus* )

(c)Geese.

(1)Greater White-fronted Goose ( *Anser albifrons* )

(2)Snow Goose (including “white” and “blue” morphs) ( *Chen caerulescens* )

(3)Ross's Goose ( *Chen rossii* )

(4)Emperor Goose ( *Chen canagica* )

(5)Canada Goose ( *Branta canadensis* )

(d)Brant.

(1)Brant ( *Branta bernicla* )

(e)Dabbling Ducks.

(1)Wood Duck ( *Aix sponsa* )

(2)American Wigeon ( *Anas americana* )

(3)Gadwall ( *Anas strepera* )

(4)American Green-winged Teal ( *Anas crecca carolinensis* )

(5)Mallard ( *Anas platyrhynchos* )

(6)Mottled Duck ( *Anas fulvigula* )

(7)American Black Duck ( *Anas rubripes* )

(8)Northern Pintail ( *Anas acuta* )

(9)Blue-winged Teal ( *Anas discors* )

(10)Cinnamon Teal ( *Anas cyanoptera* )

(11)Northern Shoveler ( *Anas clypeata* )

(f)Diving Ducks.

(1)Canvasback ( *Aythya valisineria* )

(2)Redhead ( *Aythya americana* )

(3)Ring-necked Duck ( *Aythya collaris* )

(4)Greater Scaup ( *Aythya marila* )

(5)Lesser Scaup ( *Aythya affinis* )

(g)Sea-Ducks.

(1)Common Eider ( *Somateria mollissima* )

(2)King Eider ( *Somateria spectabilis* )

(3)Spectacled Eider ( *Somateria fischeri* )

(4)Steller's Eider ( *Polysticta stelleri* )

(5)Harlequin Duck ( *Histrionicus histrionicus* )

(6)Long-tailed Duck ( *Clangula hyemalis* )

(7)Black Scoter ( *Melanitta nigra* )

(8)Surf Scoter ( *Melanitta perspicillata* )

(9)White-winged Scoter ( *Melanitta fusca* )

(10)Bufflehead ( *Bucephala albeola* )

(11)Barrow's Goldeneye ( *Bucephala islandica* )

(12)Common Goldeneye ( *Bucephala clangula* )

(h)Mergansers.

(1)Hooded Merganser ( *Lophodytes cucullatus* )

(2)Red-breasted Merganser ( *Mergus serrator* )

(3)Common Merganser ( *Mergus merganser* )

(i)Stiff Tails.

(1)Ruddy Duck ( *Oxyura jamaicensis* ) 5. Revise § 91.11 to read as follows: § 91.11 Contest opening date and entry deadline. The contest will officially open on June 1 of each year. Entries must be postmarked no later than midnight, August 15. For the latest information on contest time and place as well as all deadlines, please visit our Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps* or call

(703)358-2000. 6. Revise § 91.12 to read as follows: § 91.12 Contest eligibility. United States citizens, nationals, or resident aliens are eligible to participate in the contest. Any person who has won the contest during the preceding 3 years will be ineligible to submit an entry in the current year's contest. All entrants must be at least 18 years of age by the contest opening date (see § 91.11) to participate in the Federal Duck Stamp Contest. Contest judges and their relatives are ineligible to submit an entry. All entrants must submit a nonrefundable fee of $125.00 by cashier's check, certified check, or money order made payable to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Personal checks will not be accepted.) All entrants must submit a signed Reproduction Rights Agreement and a signed Display and Participation Agreement. 7. Revise § 91.13 to read as follows: § 91.13 Technical requirements for design and submission of entry. The design must be a horizontal drawing or painting 7 inches high and 10 inches wide. The entry may be drawn in any medium desired by the contestant and may be either multicolored or black and white. No scrollwork, lettering, bird band numbers, signatures or initials may appear on the design. Each entry must be matted (on the front only) with a 9 inch by 12 inch white mat, 1 inch wide. The matting must be affixed with clear or white tape holding the matting to the picture. Entries must not be framed, or under glass, or have any protective covering (other than the matting) attached to them. The entire entry cannot exceed 1/4 inch in total thickness. 8. Revise § 91.14 to read as follows: § 91.14 Restrictions on subject matter for entry. A live portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or fewer identified eligible species must be the dominant feature of the design. The design may depict more than one of the eligible species. Designs may include, but are not limited to, hunting dogs, hunting scenes, use of waterfowl decoys, National Wildlife Refuges as the background of habitat scenes, noneligible species, or other designs that depict uses of the stamp for sporting, conservation, and collecting purposes. The overall mandate will be to select the best design that will make an interesting, useful, and attractive duck stamp that will be accepted and prized by hunters, stamp collectors, conservationists, and others. The design must be the contestant's original hand-drawn creation. The entry design may not be copied or duplicated from previously published art, including photographs, or from images in any format published on the Internet. Photographs, computer-generated art, or art produced from a computer printer or other computer/mechanical output device (airbrush method excepted) are not eligible to be entered into the contest and will be disqualified. An entry submitted in a prior contest that was not selected for a Federal or State stamp design may be submitted in the current contest if the entry meets the above criteria. 9. Revise § 91.16(b) to read as follows: § 91.16 Submission procedures for entry.

(b)Each entry should be appropriately wrapped to protect the art work and then either hand-delivered or sent by registered mail, certified mail, express mail, or overnight delivery service to the address is § 91.1(b) of this part. 10. Revise § 91.17 to read as follows: § 91.17 Property insurance for contest entries. Each contestant is responsible for obtaining adequate insurance coverage for his/her entry. Neither the Service nor the Department of the Interior will insure the entries, nor is the Service or Department responsible for loss or damage unless such is caused by Service or Department negligence or willful misconduct. The Service and Department reserve the right to determine whether negligence or willful misconduct led to artwork being damaged. Entry fees for the subsequent year's contest may be waived for artists whose artwork we determine to be damaged by any negligence on our part. This waiver remains at our discretion. 11. Amend § 91.21 by removing the final sentence from paragraph

(a)and adding a new paragraph (c), to read as follows: § 91.21 Selection and qualification of contest judges.

(c)*Disqualification.* Any contestant who contacts a judge prior to or during the contest will automatically be disqualified from the current year's contest and barred from entering the three contests that come after the current year's contest. 12. Revise § 91.22 to read as follows: § 91.22 Display of contest entries. The Federal Duck Stamp Office assigns all eligible entries a number as entries are received. That office displays the entries in numerical order at the contest site. § 91.24 [Amended] 13. Amend § 91.24(f) by removing the words “Bureau of Engraving and Printing” and adding the words “U.S. Postal Service” in their place. Dated: March 30, 2006. Matt Hogan, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E6-5223 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 70 Wednesday, April 12, 2006 Notices ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Draft Program Comment Regarding Cold War Era Unaccompanied Personnel Housing AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. ACTION: Notice of intent to issue program comment on Cold War era unaccompanied personnel housing. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense

(DoD)is formulating its plan on how to manage its inventory of Cold War (1946-1974) era unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH). In order to better meet its Federal historic preservation responsibilities in managing these properties, DoD has requested the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP)to comment on the overall management of such properties, as opposed to submit each individual undertaking under such management to separate review. The DoD and ACHP have drafted such a comment and now seek public input on it. ACHP will take into account this public input prior to deciding whether to issue the program comment. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed program comment to Dave Berwick, Army Program Manager, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004. Fax 202-606-8672. You may submit electronic comments to *dberwick@chp.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Berwick

(202)606-8505. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP)a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (“Section 106 regulations”). Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request ACHP to provide a “Program Comment” on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews of each individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6. An agency can meet its Section 106 responsibilities for those undertakings by taking into account ACHP's Program Comment and by following the steps set forth in those comments. DoD has requested such a Program Comment to cover management of its Cold War era unaccompanied personnel housing (UPH). A copy of the draft Program Comment can be found at the end of this notice. Once the public input resulting from this notice is considered, ACHP will decide whether to issue a final Program Comment to DoD. Background on Cold War Era Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Prior to the Civil War, the military constructed few permanent barracks. In general, permanent barracks existed at a few interior installations, coastal fortifications, and military academies. After the Civil War, as new military installations were constructed, more attention was given to the design and construction of large barrack buildings located on the edge of parade grounds. The Army began constructing two-company barracks featuring a central block flanked by two wings. Between 1866 and 1942, the Army issued standardized plans, but thousands of troops were also housed in temporary World War I mobilization barracks. In the 1920s, poor living conditions of Army personnel led to the sale of excess property in order to improve military posts and housing. Large barracks were constructed between the 1920s and 1940s according to standardized plans. During World War II, mobilization plans were used for the large number of temporary barracks constructed to house the exponential growth of the military. The DoD maintained a standing force of unprecedented size during the Cold War; the Army retained almost 900,000 personnel during the 1950s. Faced with the task of providing adequate housing for that many soldiers, the Army reverted to the use of standardized plans for permanent construction of UPH. As reported to Congress: “The use of standardized plans saves in design costs, saves time in initiation of work, and provides uniformity throughout the Army. Where such plans are used, the only additional design work necessary at a specific site is to adapt the structure to the local terrain and existing utilities systems.” (U.S. Congress, House. Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services, *Military and Naval Construction,* 82nd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 3966) Cold War Era sleeping facilities were predominantly provided in squad rooms with partial partitions. Dormitory style rooms were provided for the top four grades of enlisted personnel, at Service schools with substantial out-of-classroom study, and where there was shift-type work. In the 1950s, accommodating all company functions in a single building was the prime consideration in the design of barracks. Hammerhead and H-style barracks consolidated troop housing, dining facilities, and administration facilities into one building. In the 1960s Rolling Pin barracks separated troop housing, dining facilities, and administration facilities into separate buildings. These were grouped into regimental complexes consisting of ten Rolling Pin barracks, two consolidated mess halls, two administrative buildings, chapel, post exchange, gymnasium, and dispensary. With the suspension of the Selective Services Act in 1973, the military recognized the need to attract and retain servicemen in a voluntary military. Quality of life was identified as important to troop morale. Open dormitory design with limited privacy was now an undesirable feature. New barracks design incorporated the preferred “2+2,” consisting of two adjoining, two person rooms sharing a bathroom, throughout the 1980s. The historic significance of Cold War UPH lies in their association with developing trends associated with the build-up of the military to support the Cold War. As the size of the military increased, and Congress placed limits on funding available for housing, the Military Departments developed standardized barracks plans to meet the needs of its unaccompanied enlisted personnel. The development of permanent housing for a large standing military of enlisted personnel reflects the response to the Cold War, and therefore the properties are potentially significant as a class of resources under Criterion A of the National Register Criteria for their association with the events, activities, and patterns of the Cold War build-up, though properties may not be individually eligible. Currently, DoD has identified 4,524 Cold War era unaccompanied housing buildings in its inventory. Of this total, 2,863 (63%) belong to the Army, 1,051 (23%) belong to the Navy, and 605 (13%) belong to the Air Force. The Program Comment will apply to all Cold War Era UPH buildings. These buildings were constructed to house the unprecedented number of military personnel retained during the Cold War. The Military Departments followed a number of standardized designs for construction of UPH buildings during this period. The so-called Hammerhead, Rolling-Pin, and H-style barracks were the most common designs of the period. Though these designs were originally the traditional open floor plan style, the Military Departments are upgrading all barracks to the current standards of living, including individual rooms and bathrooms. DoD anticipates that this Program Comment for UPH will allow the Military Departments to more expeditiously improve Quality of Life for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. DoD anticipates that all of its Cold War era UPH will be subject to the following categories of undertakings: ongoing operations, maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, cessation of maintenance, new construction, demolition, deconstruction and salvage, remediation activities, and transfer, sale, lease, and closure. This action will include all buildings and structures that were designed and built as UPH in the years 1946-1974, regardless of current use. This will be all buildings and structures with the DoD Category Group (2 digit) Code of 72, Unaccompanied Personnel Housing, in the Military Service's Real Property Inventory currently or at the time of construction. DoD is requesting that the ACHP provide a Program Comment as a DoD-wide Section 106 compliance action related to the effects on Cold War era UPH due to the management actions listed above. Such management actions have a potential to adversely affect historic UPH. Under the UPH Program Comment, a possible, though not likely, outcome would be the alteration or demolition of the entire group of properties built between 1946 and 1974. Because much of this housing is still being actively used by the Military Departments to house its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, it is more likely that many of these buildings will remain in use and in the inventory. However, as alteration or complete demolition is an option under the Program Comment, the proposed mitigation must reflect and address that possibility. Because the significance of these properties lies primarily in their association with the history surrounding the build up of the Cold War, and not in their architectural qualities, the loss of this entire class of properties would be appropriately mitigated if the record of that association is completed before the buildings are irreversibly altered or demolished. In this case, the existing Army study, entitled *Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

(UPH)During the Cold War (1946-1989),* comprehensively records the history of the construction and use of UPH during the Cold War era, and documents how the changing needs of the Cold War military were met through the design of Department's UPH. Consequently, because the important aspects of the relationship between these properties and the Cold War are already well documented through the history, plans, and photographs contained in the existing study, even if all the properties are demolished the effect of the loss will be appropriately mitigated. Text of the Draft Program Comment The following is the full text of the draft Program Comment: Program Comment for Cold War Era Unaccompanied Personnel Housing I. Introduction This Program Comment provides DoD, and its Military Departments with an alternative way to comply with their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with regard to the effect of the following management actions on Cold War Era Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

(UPH)that may be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places: Ongoing operations, maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, cessation of maintenance, new construction, demolition, deconstruction and salvage, remediation activities, and transfer, sale, lease, and closure of such facilities. In order to take into account the effects on such UPH, DoD and its Military Departments will conduct documentation in accordance with *The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.* As each Military Department will be responsible for conducting its own mitigation actions, the following required documentation is structured by Military Department, followed by DoD-wide requirements. II. Treatment of Properties A. Army Mitigation 1. In 2003, the Army completed a study entitled *Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

(UPH)During the Cold War (1946-1989).* This Historic Context study was undertaken to support the analysis of real property related to Army UPH, and to support the identification and evaluation of historic properties. In addition to providing historic information regarding the UPH program, the study also documents the property types defined in their historic context. In-depth archival research of primary and secondary sources was undertaken on the organizational history, doctrines, and policies that influenced the design and development of Army UPH during the Cold War era. Data were collected to identify significant events and policies that influenced site plans, building design, and spatial arrangement of Army UPH facilities. Archival research was also directed to compile data on the evolution and modification of these property types over time. In addition, site visits to six Army installations containing UPH facilities were completed. The installations were examined to identify and document UPH-related property types based on extant real property in the Army inventory. These case studies included a summary installation history, interview data from the cultural resource management, a review of extant real property, and a detailed architectural analysis of the design, materials, construction and modification of over 700 examples of Army UPH. The resulting report provides a comprehensive and detailed record of Army UPH, including a collection of site plans, as-built building plans, and photographs (Chapter 4). Since these standard designs have already been well documented, no additional documentation of the Army's UPH are needed as part of the overall DoD mitigation. 2. The Army, in order to take into account effects on potentially historic UPH, will amend *Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

(UPH)During the Cold War (1946-1989)* in order to make it available to a wider audience. Due to security concerns, the distribution of the context study is limited to U.S. Government Agencies Only. The Army will remove the elements of the document that are security risks and then make the context available to the public. B. Navy Mitigation 1. The Navy will produce a supplemental context study appendix that will be attached as an appendix to the Army's *Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

(UPH)During the Cold War (1946-1989).* The final product will be a separately bound volume of additional information and photographs and tabular appendices that, when taken with the Army's and Air Force's context studies, provide a clear picture of the DoD's UPH. The context study appendix will: —Explore the post-World War II changing demographics of Navy personnel and its impact on housing needs; —Amend, as necessary, and adopt the Army's criteria for evaluating the historic significance of UPH; —Consider the importance of major builders, developers and architects that may have been associated with design and construction of UPH; and —Describe the inventory of UPH in detail, providing information on the various types of buildings and architectural styles and the quantity of each. 2. The Navy shall document a representative sample of the basic types of UPH. The Navy will choose three geographically dispersed installations with the greatest number and variety of such resources. The Marine Corps will choose one such example. The sample chosen shall be the best representative examples of the range of UPH types constructed during the Cold War era. This documentation would include collecting existing plans and drawings, writing a historic description in narrative or outline format, and compiling historic photographs of the buildings (similar in scope to the Army's documentation). C. Air Force Mitigation 1. The Air Force will produce a supplemental context study appendix that will be attached to the Army's *Unaccompanied Personnel Housing

(UPH)During the Cold War (1946-1989)* . The final product will be a separately bound volume of additional information and photographs and tabular appendices that, when taken with the Army's and Navy's context studies, provide a clear picture of the Department of Defense's UPH. The context study appendix will: —Explore the post-World War II changing demographics of Air Force personnel and its impact on housing needs; —Amend, as necessary, and adopt the Army's criteria for evaluating the historic significance of UPH; —Consider the importance of major builders, developers and architects that may have been associated with design and construction of UPH; and —Describe the inventory of UPH in detail, providing information on the various types of buildings and architectural styles and the quantity of each. The Air Force shall include documentation of representative sampling of the basic types of UPH. The Air Force will choose three geographically dispersed installations with the greatest number and variety of such resources. The sample chosen shall be the best representative examples of the range of UPH types constructed during the Cold War era. This documentation would include collecting existing plans and drawings, writing a historic description in narrative or outline format, and compiling historic photographs of the buildings, and would be similar in scope to the Army's documentation. D. DoD-Wide Mitigation 1. Additionally, DoD recently completed a draft context study entitled *The Built Environment of Cold War Era Servicewomen* through the Legacy Resource Management Program. This context study examines how the needs of women service members shaped construction plans and practices of several types of facilities, including UPH. The Legacy Program recently approved funds for the completion of this document. The legacy program will make the context study available to the Military Departments and the public to enhance the consideration and documentation of the UPH story. 2. DoD and its Military Departments will make copies of all documentation available electronically, to the extent possible under security concerns, and hard copies will be placed in a permanent repository, such as the Center for Military History. 3. As a result of on-going consultations with stakeholders, each Military Department will provide a list of its UPH properties covered by the Program Comment, by State, to stakeholders. Each Military Department will be responsible for determining how to convey its information. 4. All Military Departments will encourage adaptive reuse of UPH properties when feasible, as well as the use of historic tax credits by private developers under lease arrangements. Military Departments will also incorporate adaptive reuse and preservation principles into master planning documents and activities. These actions satisfy DoD's requirement to take into account the effects of the following management actions on Cold War Era DoD UPH that may be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places: ongoing operations, maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, ceasing maintenance activities, new construction, demolition, deconstruction and salvage, remedial activities, and transfer, sale, lease, and closure. III. Applicability A. This Program Comment applies solely to Cold War Era DoD UPH. The Program Comment does not apply to the following properties that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places:

(1)Archaeological properties,

(2)properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and/or

(3)UPH in National Register of Historic Places districts where the UPH is a contributing element of the district and the proposed undertaking has the potential to adversely affect such historic district. This exclusion does not apply to historic districts that are made up solely of UPH properties. In those cases the Program Comment would be applicable to such districts. Since the proposed mitigation for UPH documents site plans, building designs, and the spatial arrangement of UPH, along with the events and actions that lead to the development of UPH, the important aspects of UPH, whether single buildings or districts made up entirely of UPH, will be addressed regardless of the type of undertaking that may affect this particular property type. B. An installation with an existing Section 106 agreement document in place that addresses UPH can choose to:

(1)Continue to follow the stipulations in the existing agreement document for the remaining period of the agreement; or

(2)Seek to amend the existing agreement document to incorporate, in whole or in part, the terms of this Program Comment; or

(3)Terminate the existing agreement document, and re-initiate consultation informed by this Program Comment if necessary. C. All future Section 106 agreement documents developed by the Military Departments related to the undertakings and properties addressed in this Program Comment shall include appropriate provisions detailing whether and how the terms of this Program Comment apply to such undertakings. IV. Completion Schedule On or before 60 days following approval of the Program Comment, DoD, its Military Departments and ACHP will establish a schedule for completion of the treatments outlined above. V. Effect of the Program Comment By following this Program Comment, DoD and its Military Departments meet their responsibilities for compliance under Section 106 regarding the effect of the following management actions on Cold War era DoD UPH that may be listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places: Ongoing operations, maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, ceasing maintenance activities, new construction, demolition, deconstruction and salvage, remedial activities, and transfer, sale, lease, and closure. Accordingly, DoD installations are no longer required to follow the case-by-case Section 106 review process for such effects. As each of the Military Departments is required under this Program Comment to document their own facilities, failure of anyone Military Department to comply with the terms of the Program Comment will not adversely affect the other Departments' abilities to continue managing their properties under the Program Comment. VI. Duration and Review of the Program Comment This Program Comment will remain in effect until such time as Headquarters, Department of the Army determines that such comments are no longer needed and notifies ACHP in writing, or ACHP withdraws the comments in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(e)(6). Following such withdrawal, the Army would be required to comply with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 regarding the effects under this Program Comments' scope. Headquarters, Department of the Army and ACHP will review the implementation of the Program Comment ten years after its issuance. Authority: 36 CFR 800.14(e). Dated: April 7, 2006. John M. Fowler, Executive Director. [FR Doc. 06-3509 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 28

Traces to 28 documents

U.S. Code