Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

13,195 words·~60 min read·/register/2006/04/19/06-3737

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-726; MB Docket No. 06-66; RM-11321] Radio Broadcasting Services; Normangee, TX AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Charles Crawford requesting the allotment of Channel 299A at Normangee, Texas. The reference coordinates for Channel 299A at Normangee, Texas, are 30-56-00 NL and 96-11-30 WL. There is a site restriction 13.0 kilometers (8.1 miles) southwest of the community.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 22, 2006, and reply comments on or before June 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Charles Crawford, 4553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75205 and Gene A. Bechtel, Law Office of Gene Bechtel, 1050 17th Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 06-66, adopted March 29, 2006, and released March 31, 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* . 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). 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 Texas, is amended by adding Normangee, Channel 299A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-5562 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-727; MB Docket No. 06-65, RM-11320] Radio Broadcasting Services; Ashland, KS AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by OKAN Community Radio proposing a first local service at Ashland, Kansas. To avoid a conflict with a mutually exclusive proposal, we propose alternate Channel 288C3 at Ashland, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules, at the center of the city reference coordinates at 37-11-12 North Latitude and 99-46-12 West Longitude. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 22, 2006, and reply comments on or before June 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the Petitioner's counsel, as follows: OKAN Community Radio, c/o Lee W. Shubert, Esq., Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW., East Lobby, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20007-5201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2738. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , MB Docket No. 06-65, adopted March 29, 2006, and released March 31, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 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 *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). 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* contact. 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 Kansas, is amended by adding Ashland, Channel 288C3. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-5579 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-725; MB Docket No. 04-217; RM-10863] Radio Broadcasting Services; Clayton, GA and Sylva, NC AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. SUMMARY: In response to a *Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“Notice ”)* , this *Report and Order* dismisses a rulemaking proceeding requesting that Channel 281A, FM Station WRBN, Clayton, Georgia, be reallotted to Sylva, North Carolina, and the license of Station WRBN be modified accordingly. Sutton Broadcasting Corporation (“Sutton”), the proponent of this rulemaking, requested Commission approval for the withdrawal of its Petition for Rule Making and its expression of interest in implementing its rulemaking proposal. Sutton filed a declaration that neither it nor any of its principals has received or will receive any consideration in connection with the withdrawal of its expression of interest in this proceeding. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket No. 04-217, adopted March 29, 2006, and released March 31, 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, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.* 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 is dismissed.) List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-5578 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-729; MB Docket No. 06-72; RM-11245 Radio Broadcasting Services; Boardman, OR and Clarkston, WA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by SSR Communications, Inc. (“Petitioner”), requesting the allotment of Channel 231C3 to Boardman, Oregon. To accommodate this allotment, Petitioner requested the reclassification of FM Station KCLK-FM, Channel 231C, Clarkston, Washington to specify operation on Channel 231C0, pursuant to the reclassification procedures adopted by the Commission. The Commission has recently reclassified Station KCLK-FM to Channel 231C0. Channel 231C3 can be allotted to Boardman, Oregon, with a site restriction of 18.5 kilometers (11.5 miles) west of Boardman, at reference coordinates of 45-53-51 NL and 119-55-21 WL. DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 22, 2006, and reply comments on or before June 6, 2006. Any counterproposal filed in this proceeding need only protect Station KCLK-FM, Clarkston, Washington, as a Class C0 allotment. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner as follows: Matthew K. Wesolowski, General Manager; SSR Communications, Inc.; 5270 West Jones Bridge Road; Norcross, Georgia 30092-1628. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau,

(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* , MB Docket No. 06-72, adopted March 29, 2006, and released March 31, 2006. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *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). 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 Oregon, is amended by adding Boardman, Channel 231C0. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-5577 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 252 RIN 0750-AF24 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Reports of Government Property (DFARS Case 2005-D015) AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: DoD is extending the comment period for the proposed amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) that were published in the **Federal Register** of Tuesday, March 21, 2006 (71 FR 14151). The proposed amendments addressed requirements for reporting of Government property in the possession of contractors. DATES: The ending date for submission of comments is extended to May 22, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Robin Schulze, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone

(703)602-0326; facsimile

(703)602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2005-D015. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed DFARS amendments would replace existing DD Form 1662 property reporting requirements with requirements for contractors to electronically submit data to the Item Unique Identification Registry. The comment period is extended to provide additional time for interested parties to review the proposed changes. Michele P. Peterson, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. E6-5857 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 594 [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-2412; Notice 1] RIN [2127-AJ87] Schedule of Fees Authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141 AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document proposes fees for Fiscal Year 2007 and until further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, relating to the registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer

(RI)program. DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than June 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System

(DMS)Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Click on “Help” to view instructions for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket and notice number of this document. You can find the number at the beginning of this document. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5291). For legal issues, you may call Michael Goode, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202-366-5263). You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket in person from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction On June 24, 1996, at 61 FR 32411, we published a notice that discussed in full the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 594 and the fees authorized by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562, since recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30141-47. The reader is referred to that notice for background information relating to this rulemaking action. Certain fees were initially established to become effective January 31, 1990, and have been in effect and occasionally modified since then. The fees applicable in any fiscal year are to be established before the beginning of such year. We are proposing fees that would become effective on October 1, 2006, the beginning of FY 2007. The statute authorizes fees to cover the costs of the importer registration program, to cover the cost of making import eligibility decisions, and to cover the cost of processing the bonds furnished to the Department of Homeland Security (Customs). We last amended the fee schedule in 2004. See final rule published on September 28, 2004 at 69 FR 57869. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006. The proposed fees are based on time and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed and reflect the slight increase in hourly costs in the past two fiscal years attributable to the approximately 3.71 and 3.44 percent raises (including the locality adjustment for Washington, DC) in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that became effective on January 1, 2005, and on January 1, 2006, respectively. Requirements of the Fee Regulation Section 594.6—Annual Fee for Administration of the Importer Registration Program Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must pay the annual fees established “* * * to pay for the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers. * * *” This fee is payable both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its registration application (or in later submissions amending that information) remains correct (49 CFR 592.5(f)). In compliance with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications. We have tentatively determined that this fee should be decreased from $293 to $266 for new applications. We have also tentatively determined that the fee for the review of the annual statement should be decreased from $208 to $159. The proposed adjustments reflect reduced “per hour” computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-server Information Technology

(IT)systems based on user-friendly personal computers (PCs). The proposed adjustments also reflect our time expenditures in reviewing both new applications and annual statements with accompanying documentation, as well as the inflation factor attributable to Federal salary increases and locality adjustments in the two years since the regulation was last amended. We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the registration program that arise from the need for us to review a registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to those matters in the past two years. Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is approximately $411 for each RI, a decrease of $126. When this $411 is added to the $266 representing the registration application component, the cost to an applicant comes to $677, which is the fee we propose. This represents a decrease of $260 over the existing fee. When the $411 is added to the $159 representing the annual statement component, the total cost to the RI comes to $570, which represents a decrease of $175. Section 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with processing the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states that these costs represent a pro rata allocation of the average salary and benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform related functions, and “a pro rata allocation of the costs attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word processor.” For the purpose of establishing the fees that are currently in existence, indirect costs are $20.07 per man-hour. We are proposing to decrease this figure by $3.00, to $17.07. This proposed decrease is based on the difference between enacted budgetary costs within the Department of Transportation for the last two fiscal years, which were lower than the estimates used when the fee schedule was last amended, and takes account of further projected decreases over the next two fiscal years. Sections 594.7, 594.8—Fees To Cover Agency Costs in Making Importation Eligibility Determinations Section 30141(a)(3) also requires registered importers to pay other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the costs of “* * *

(B)making the decisions under this subchapter.” This includes decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S. certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other evidence NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the Administrator's own initiative. The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the estimated pro-rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility determinations in a fiscal year. Inflation and General Schedule raises must also be taken into account in the computation of costs. We have reduced costs by issuing a single **Federal Register** notice to announce import eligibility decisions made on multiple vehicles and realized reduced “per hour” computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-server IT systems based on user-friendly PCs. Despite the cost savings that have accrued from these developments, RIs have imported fewer vehicles each year since we last amended the fee schedule. This has increased the pro-rata share of petition costs that are to be assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the decision to grant import eligibility. The agency has also devoted an increasing share of staff time in the past two years to the review and processing of import eligibility petitions owing to a proportionately greater number of comments being submitted in response to these petitions, as well as complications that result when the petitioner or one or more commenters request confidentiality for information they submit to the agency. Additional staff time is also needed to analyze the petitions and any comments received owning to new requirements being adopted in the FMVSS. Despite these factors, we are proposing no increase in the current fee of $175 that covers the initial processing of a “substantially similar” petition. Instead, as discussed below, we are proposing to address these additional costs by increasing the pro-rata share of petition costs that are assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the decision to grant import eligibility. Likewise, we are also proposing to maintain the existing fee of $800 to cover the initial costs for processing petitions for vehicles that have no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart. In the event that a petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an inspection would remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of petition. Importers of vehicles determined to be eligible for importation pay, upon the importation of those vehicles, a pro-rata share of the total cost for making the eligibility decision. The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by VSA Nos. 80-83, for which no eligibility decision fee is assessed), the fee would remain $125. NHTSA determined that the costs associated with previous eligibility determinations on the agency's own initiative would be fully recovered by October 1, 2006. We would apply the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by determinations made by the agency on its own initiative on or after October 1, 2006. The agency's costs for making an import eligibility decision pursuant to a petition are borne in part by the petitioner and in part by the importers of vehicles imported under the petition. In 2005, the most recent year for which complete data exists, the agency expended $79,626 in making import eligibility decisions based on petitions. The petitioners paid $8,575 of that amount in the processing fees that accompanied the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $71,051 to be recovered from the importers of the 192 vehicles imported that year under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $71,051 by 192 yields a pro-rata fee of $370 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that resulted from the granting of a petition. However, the agency believes that the volume of petition-based imports for the next two fiscal years should not be projected on the basis of a single year, particularly one in which the volume of petitioned-based imports was atypically low. The agency therefore took the average number of petition-based imports over the past 15 years to project the number of such vehicles that would be imported in Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. Further, we anticipate that petitions filed during Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008 would also more closely reflect the average number of petitions received each year since 1991, the first year that the agency received RI petitions. Based on these estimates, we anticipate that nearly 600 vehicles would be imported under petition-based eligibility decisions and that 42 petition-based import eligibility decisions would be made. Based on these estimates, the agency's costs for processing these petitions would increase to no more than $140,000. Petitioners would pay slightly more than $15,000 of that amount in the processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving the remaining $125,000 to be recovered from the importers of the nearly 600 vehicles to be imported each year under petition-based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $125,000 by 600 yields a pro-rata fee of $208 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility decision that results from the granting of a petition. Based on our estimates for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008, the pro rata fee to be paid by the importer of each such vehicle would increase from $150 to $208, representing an increase of $58 from the existing fee for each vehicle imported. The same $208 fee would be paid regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a), based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S. certified model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS. Section 594.9—Fee To Recover the Costs of Processing the Bond Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes “* * * to pay for the costs of—(A) processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the Treasury * * *” upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or abandoned to the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) now exercises the functions associated with the processing of these bonds. The statute contemplates that we would make a reasonable determination of the costs that Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5 employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20 minutes. Based on General Schedule salary and locality raises that were effective in January 2005 and 2006 and the inclusion of costs for benefits, we are proposing that the processing fee be increased by $0.47, from $9.30 per bond to $9.77. This fee would reflect the direct and indirect costs that are actually associated with processing the bonds. Section 594.10—Fee for Review and Processing of Conformity Certificate Each RI is currently required to pay $18 per vehicle to cover the costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We estimate that these costs would decrease to an average of $13 per vehicle because of lower contractor costs and reduced “per hour” computer costs, which are attributed to the implementation of client-server IT systems based on user-friendly PCs. Based on these estimates, we are proposing to reduce the fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is made, from $18 to $13, a difference of $5 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the Automated Broker Interface

(ABI)system, has an e-mail address to receive communications from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we realize allow us to significantly reduce the fee to $6. We propose to maintain the fee of $6 per vehicle if all the information in the ABI entry is correct. Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve the conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory time, as well as the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $42 for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $48, representing no change in the fee that is currently charged when there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of conformity. Effective Date The proposed effective date of the final rule is October 1, 2006. Rulemaking Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. There would be no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There would be no substantial impact upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review in the docket. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBFEFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The agency has considered the effects of this proposed rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that if the proposed amendments are adopted they would not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed amendments would primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles and which are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this action. In some instances, these fees would be only modestly increased (and in most instances decreased) from the fees now being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances, sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond processing costs. Governmental jurisdictions would not be affected at all since they are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor vehicles. C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Executive Order 13132 on “Federalism” requires NHTSA 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.” Executive Order 13132 defines the term “policies that have federalism implications” 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The proposed rule would not 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 as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking action. D. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The action would not have a significant effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule. E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 “Civil Justice Reform,” this agency has considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that this proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Because a final rule based on this proposal would not require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. G. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs? —Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? —Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is unclear? —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? —Would more (but shorter) sections be better? —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document. H. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposal would require no information collections. I. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that

(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and

(2)concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not economically significant. J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 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) directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. After conducting a search of available sources, we have concluded that there are no voluntary consensus standards applicable to this proposed rule. K. Comments How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES . How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given at the beginning of this document under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation, 49 CFR, part 512. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments? We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People? You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES . You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1)Go to the Docket Management System

(DMS)Web page of the Department of Transportation ( *http://dms.dot.gov/* ).

(2)On that page, click on “search.”

(3)On the next page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search/* ), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. Example: if the docket number were “NHTSA-2000-1234,” you would type “1234.”

(4)After typing the docket number, click on “search.”

(5)The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of the word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material. L. Regulation Identifier Number

(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number

(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN that appears in the heading on the first page of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 594 as follows: List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles. PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141 1. The authority citation for part 594 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 9701; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 594.6 would be amended by;

(a)Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);

(b)Revising paragraph (b);

(c)Revising paragraph (d);

(d)Revising the final sentence of paragraph (h); and

(e)Revising paragraph

(i)to read as follows: § 594.6 Annual fee for administration of the registration program.

(a)Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after October 1, 2006, must pay an annual fee of $677, as calculated below, based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:

(b)That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the processing of the application for applications filed on and after October 1, 2006, is $266. The sum of $266, representing this portion, shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.

(d)That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the remaining activities of administering the registration program on and after October 1, 2006, is set forth in paragraph

(i)of this section. This portion shall be refundable if the application is denied, or withdrawn before final action upon it.

(h)* * * This cost is $17.07 per man-hour for the period beginning October 1, 2006.

(i)Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and

(h)of this section, the component of the initial annual fee attributable to administration of the registration program, covering the period beginning October 1, 2006, is $411. When added to the costs of registration of $266, as set forth in paragraph

(b)of this section, the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are $677. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning October 1, 2006, is $570. 3. Section 594.7 would be amended by revising paragraph

(e)to read as follows: § 594.7 Fee for filing petitions for a determination whether a vehicle is eligible for importation.

(e)For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2006, the fee payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $175. The fee payable for a petition seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(2) of this section is $800. If the petitioner requests an inspection of a vehicle, the sum of $827 shall be added to such fee. No portion of this fee is refundable if the petition is withdrawn or denied. 4. Section 594.8 would be amended by revising paragraph

(b)and the first sentence of paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 594.8 Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to a determination by the Administrator.

(b)If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the fee for each vehicle is $208. The direct and indirect costs that determine the fee are those set forth in §§ 594.7(b), (c), and (d).

(c)If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2006, pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is $125. * * * 5. Section 594.9 would be amended by revising paragraph

(c)to read as follows: § 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs.

(c)The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2006, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is $9.77. 5. Section 594.10 would be amended by revising paragraph

(d)to read as follows: § 594.10 Fee for review and processing of conformity certificate.

(d)The review and processing fee for each certificate of conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2006 is $13. However, if the vehicle covered by the certificate has been entered electronically with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Automated Broker Interface and the registered importer submitting the certificate has an e-mail address, the fee for the certificate is $6, provided that the fee is paid by a credit card issued to the registered importer. If NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the certificate is incorrect, requiring further processing, the processing fee shall be $48. Ronald Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. E6-5740 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 71 75 Wednesday, April 19, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0043] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Peer Reviewer's Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: New information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of a new information collection activity related to peer review of scientific information disseminated to the public by the Agency. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0043 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the “Advanced Search” function in Regulations.gov. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0043, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0043. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on APHIS' peer review process or the peer reviewer's certification regarding conflict of interest, contact Dr. Natalie Roberts, APHIS Peer Review Officer, Planning, Evaluation, and Monitoring, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C-03.27, 4700 River Road Unit 120, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; phone

(301)734-8937 or e-mail *natalie.a.roberts@aphis.usda.gov* . For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* APHIS Peer Reviewer's Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest. *OMB Number:* 0579-XXXX. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting and promoting U.S. agricultural health, administering the Animal Welfare Act, and carrying out wildlife damage management activities. In carrying out its mission, APHIS collects, generates, and disseminates a wide variety of scientific information. Some of the information APHIS disseminates is “influential”—that is, it has a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or important private sector decisions. A very small portion of APHIS' scientific information takes the form of “highly influential scientific assessments,” which have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any year, or are novel, controversial, precedent-setting, or of significant interagency interest. In order to ensure the objectivity and highest level of quality of such scientific information, APHIS arranges for these documents to be peer reviewed in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,” which was published in the **Federal Register** on January 14, 2005, and is available on the Web at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2005/011405_peer.pdf* . To ensure the effectiveness and integrity of the peer review process, APHIS pays careful attention to potential conflicts of interest when selecting peer reviewers. APHIS has developed a standard letter to prospective peer reviewers, which, among other things, asks them to consider whether they may have a conflict of interest related to review of a specific scientific document and, if not, asks them to sign a form certifying that they have no conflicting interests. We are asking OMB to approve our use of this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response. *Respondents:* Peer reviewers for agency scientific documents. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 50. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 50. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 12.5 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-5880 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0015] Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Field Release of Genetically Engineered Pink Bollworm AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that an environmental assessment has been prepared for a proposed field trial of pink bollworm genetically engineered to express green fluorescence as a marker. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposes to use this marked strain to assess the effectiveness of lower doses of radiation to create sterile insects for its pink bollworm sterile insect program. This program, using sterile insect technique, has been conducted by APHIS, with State and grower cooperation, since 1968. Data gained from this field experiment will be used to improve the current program. APHIS has completed an environmental assessment and has concluded that this field test will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on its finding of no significant impact, APHIS has determined that an Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared for this field test. DATES: *Effective Date:* April 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may read the environmental assessment (EA), the finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and any comments that we received on Docket No. APHIS-2006-0015 in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. The EA, FONSI, and responses to comments are also available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05_09801r_ea.pdf* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robyn Rose, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;

(301)734-0489. To obtain copies of the EA, FONSI, and response to comments, contact Ms. Ingrid Berlanger at

(301)734-4885; e-mail: *ingrid.e.berlanger@aphis.usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.” A permit must be obtained or a notification acknowledged before a regulated article may be introduced. The regulations set forth the permit application requirements and the notification procedures for the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of a regulated article. On April 8, 2005, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a permit application (APHIS No. 05-098-01r) from APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine

(PPQ)Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST) Decision Support and Pest Management Systems Laboratory in Phoenix, AZ, for a field trial using the pink bollworm (PBW), *Pectinophora gossypiella* (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), that has been genetically engineered to express an enhanced green fluorescent protein

(EGFP)derived from the jellyfish *Aequora victoria* . A piggyBac transposable element derived from the plant pest cabbage looper ( *Trichoplusia ni* ) was used to transform the subject PBW, and expression of the EGFP is controlled through use of a *Bombyx mori* cytoplasmic actin promoter. The subject transgenic PBW is considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because the recipient organism is a plant pest. The proposed field test will evaluate the feasability of using F1 sterility systems in a sterile insect program, which is designed to depress PBW populations. The transgenic PBW will be reared in the Phoenix PBW genetic rearing facility and treated with radiation levels suitable to induce F1 sterility. The irradiated insects will be released into no more than four 3-acre field sites of cotton that are adjacent to cotton expressing the Bt toxin, which is toxic to PBW. This release is part of CPHST's PBW sterile insect program. Information resulting from this research will be used in support of APHIS' efforts to eradicate the PBW in the United States. Additional information on the PBW eradication plan for the United States may be found at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pdmp/cotton/pinkbollworm/eradication/eradication.pdf* . An environmental assessment

(EA)prepared for the Southwest Pink Bollworm Eradication Program may be found at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/pdf%20files/swpbwea.pdf* . On February 13, 2006 APHIS published a notice 1 in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 7503-7504, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0015) announcing the availability of an EA for the proposed field trial. During the 30-day comment period, APHIS received two comments. One comment was from an individual and the other was from a government research scientist. One comment generally objected to the field release. The commenter made several unsupported, sweeping statements suggesting that the trial is poorly designed and will result in “health problems.” APHIS finds no basis for these statements and disagrees with the comment. Additionally, the commenter suggests that APHIS should be required to get “sign off of the neighbors.” APHIS has carefully evaluated the design of the field trial and has determined that it will not result in the establishment of the regulated article outside of the field test. Additionally, APHIS has informed the public of the proposed field test and requested comment on the EA. APHIS is confident that this field test will not impact the human environment, including the neighbors, and has given adequate notice of the field test. The second comment supported the field trial described in the EA and suggested that the “* * * results will be vital to the progress of agricultural pest control.” APHIS agrees with the comment. 1 To view the notice, EA, and the comments we received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0015, then click on “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. Pursuant to its regulations (7 CFR part 340) promulgated under the Plant Protection Act, APHIS has determined that this field trial will not pose a risk of the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest for the following reasons: EGFP transgenic insects will not persist in the environment. They will be sterilized by irradiation and the EGFP transgenic insect's fecundity in the EGFP PBW to be released is significantly lower than non-EGFP insects. Redundant mitigation measures are incorporated into the experimental procedures to ensure that genetically modified EGFP PBW will not become established in the environment. These measures are as follows: • All the surrounding cotton expresses *Bacillus thuringiensis*

(Bt)toxin that kills PBW larvae. • There are no sexually compatible relatives of the PBW in the United States, so the transgene cannot spread via hybridization with other species. • The *piggyBac* -derived transposable element used to make the transforming construct has no functional transposase gene, thereby eliminating its ability to mobilize itself. • The release area will be monitored intensively with pheromone traps that attract and collect PBW male moths. Traps will be set up to 5 miles away from the site. • The area of release is less than 12 acres with no more than 3 acres per plot. • If adverse persistence is detected, unwanted bollworms will be killed with insecticides. Larvae from eggs oviposited on Bt cotton will not survive. • PBW populations can be suppressed by flooding the area with a high ratio of sterilized bollworms to field insects. • All moths will be securely managed and contained in production and transport using standard operating procedures with extremely high reliability developed for a long-running sterile insect technique program. • All living bollworms reared for this field trial that are not used as part of the environmental release will be killed. Based on the factors described above and the analysis contained in the EA, APHIS has determined that the proposed field trial will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The EA and finding of significant impact were prepared in accordance with:

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

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

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

(4)APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). Copies of the EA and FONSI are available from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-5878 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0010] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are sponsoring a public meeting on May 9, 2006. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States positions that will be discussed at the Twenty-seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which will be held in Budapest, Hungary, May 15-19, 2006. The Under Secretary and FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 27th Session of CCMAS and to address issues on the agenda. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, 2006 from 10:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the Conference Room 1A 002, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD. Documents related to the 27th Session of CCMAS will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS)invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select the FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2006-0010 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand-or courier-delivered items: Send to FSIS Docket Room, Docket Clerk, USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102, Cotton Annex Building, Washington, DC 20250. Electronic mail: *fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.* All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2006-0010. All comments submitted in response to this notice, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be posted to the regulations.gov Web site. The background information and comments also will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition to submitting comments by mail to the above address, the U.S. Delegate to the CCMAS, Dr. Gregory Diachenko of the Food and Drug Administration, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address ( *gregory.diachenko@fda.hhs.gov* ). *Pre-Registration:* To gain admittance to this meeting, individuals must present a photo ID for identification and also *are required to pre-register.* In addition, no cameras or videotaping equipment will be permitted in the meeting room. To pre-register, please send the following information to this e-mail address ( *gregory.diachenko@fda.hhs.gov* ) by *May 4, 2006:* —Your Name —Organization —Mailing Address —Phone number —E-mail address * For Further Information About the 27th Session of the CCMAS Contact:* U.S. Delegate, Dr. Gregory Diachenko, Director, Division of Chemistry Research and Environmental Review, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, Harvey Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, Maryland 20740. Phone

(301)436-1898; Fax

(301)436-2634, E-mail: *gregory.diachenko@fda.hhs.gov.* *For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact:* Syed Amjad Ali, International Issues Analyst, U.S. Codex Office, FSIS, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. Phone

(202)205-7760; Fax

(202)720-3157. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization

(Test)Results • Recommendation for a Checklist of Information • Further Review of Analytical Terminology for Codex Use (For inclusion in the Procedural Manual) • Criteria for Methods of Detection and Identification of Foods Derived from Biotechnology • Conversion of the Methods for Trace Elements into Criteria • Methods of analysis for dioxins and PCBs Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Hungarian Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* Public Meeting At the May 9, 2006 public meeting, these agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 27th Session of the CCMAS, Dr. Gregory Diachenko (See For Further Information About the 27TH Session of the CCMAS Contact). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 27th Session of the CCMAS. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web Page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2006_Notices_Index/.* FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service that provides an automatic and customized notification when popular pages are updated, including **Federal Register** publications and related documents. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* and allows FSIS-FAIM customers to sign up for subscription options in eight categories. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to protect their accounts with passwords. Done at Washington, DC on: April 14, 2006. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E6-5861 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2006-0007] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meeting, request for comments. SUMMARY: The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are sponsoring a public meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items that will be discussed at the Sixteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Residues in Veterinary Drugs in Foods, which will be held in Cancun, Mexico, May 8-12, 2006. The Under Secretary and CVM recognize the importance of providing interested parties with information about the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and to address items on the Agenda for the 16th Session of the Committee. DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 2006, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 1160, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Documents related to the 16th Session of CCRVDF will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net.* FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select the FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2006-0007 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand- or courier-delivered items: Send to FSIS Docket Room, Docket Clerk, USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102, Cotton Annex Building, Washington, DC 20250. Electronic mail: *fsis.regulationscomments@fsis.usda.gov.* All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2006-0007. All comments submitted in response to this notice, as well as research and background information used by FSIS in developing this document, will be posted to the *regulations.gov* Web site. The background information and comments also will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. *For Further Information About the 16th Session of CCRVDF Contact:* U.S. Delegate, Dr. Steven Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine, FDA, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone:

(301)827-1796, Fax:

(301)594-2297. E-mail: *svaughn@cvm.fda.gov.* *For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact:* Edith E. Kennard, Staff Officer, U.S. Codex Office, FSIS, Room 4861, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)720-5261, Fax:

(202)720-3157, E-mail: *edith.kennard@fsis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. In the United States, USDA, FDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency manage and carry out U.S. Codex. The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods was established in 1985 by the 16th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to determine priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods, to recommend maximum levels of such substances, to develop codes of practice as may be required, and to consider methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in foods. The Committee is chaired by the United States. Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting The following items on the agenda for the 16th Session of CCRVDF will be discussed during the public meeting: • Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Veterinary Drugs at Steps 7, 6, 4 and 3 • Proposed Draft Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Program for the Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods • Proposed Draft Revised Part I, II, and III of the Codex Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Program for the Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods • Risk Management Methodologies, Including Risk Assessment Policies, in the Codex Committee of Veterinary Drugs in Foods • Review of Performance-based Criteria for Methods of Analysis • Consideration of the Priority List of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation or Re-evaluation • Report of the Working Group on Residues of Veterinary Drugs without ADI/MRL Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the U.S. Secretariat to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net.* Public Meeting At the April 26, 2006 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on these agenda items will be described, discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 16th Session of CCRVDF, Dr. Steven Vaughn, (see For Further Information About the 16th Session of CCRVDF Contact). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 16th Session of the CCRVDF. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web Page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations/2006_Notices_Index/.* FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals and other individuals who have asked to be included. The update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service that provides an automatic and customized notification when popular pages are updated, including **Federal Register** publications and related documents. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* and allows FSIS-FAIM customers to sign up for subscription options in eight categories. Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to protect their accounts with passwords. Done at Washington, DC on April 14, 2006. F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. [FR Doc. E6-5876 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fee; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY: Sumter National Forest, USDA Forest Service. ACTION: Notice of New Fee Site. SUMMARY: The Sumter National Forest proposes to begin charging a $3.00 fee for the use of the FORKS Mountain Bike Trail. Continued interest in mountain bike trails, especially in this area, have shown the public's interest in this activity will be appreciated and well received. Funds derived from this fee will be used for the continued maintenance of the trail, provide porta-potties for sanitation, provide drinking water to meet DHEC standards and maintain the trailhead. This project was made possible through a cooperative effort between the Forest Service, South Carolina Parks Recreation and Tourism, Southern Off Road Biking Association, Long Cane Trails, Michelin and Upper Savannah Land Trust. DATES: The proposed fee will be initiated October 31, 2006. Comments, concerns or questions about this new fee must be submitted by May 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, concerns or questions about the new fee associated with forks Mountain Bike Trail to: Forest Supervisor, Sumter National Forest, 4931 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29212-3530. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Libby Meadows, Outdoor Recreation Planner, 864, 746-6120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six-month advance notice in the **Federal Register** whenever new recreation fee areas are established. The Sumter National Forest, Long Cane Ranger District, currently has a large mountain biking community. The Recreation Resource Advisory Committee will review consideration for new fee at least three months prior to proposed initiation date. Dated: April 11, 2006. Kerwin Dewberry, Acting Ranger, Long Cane Ranger District. [FR Doc. 06-3737 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

U.S. Code