Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule
32,674 words·~149 min read·
/register/2006/04/20/06-3774A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 76 Thursday, April 20, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 28 [Doc. # CN-06-001] RIN 0581-AC58 User Fees for 2006 Crop Cotton Classification Services To Growers AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is proposing to maintain user fees for cotton producers for 2006 crop cotton classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act at the same level as in 2005. This is in accordance with the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987. The 2005 user fee for this classification service was $1.85 per bale. This proposal would maintain the fee for the 2006 crop at $1.85 per bale. The proposed fee and the existing reserve are sufficient to cover the costs of providing classification services, including costs for administration and supervision. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule to Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, STOP 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. Comments should be submitted in triplicate. Comments may also be submitted electronically to: *cottoncomments@usda.gov.* All comments should reference the docket number and the date and the page of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the above office in Rm. 2641—South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. A copy of this notice may be found at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/cotton/rulemaking.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darryl Earnest, Deputy Administrator, Cotton Program, AMS, USDA, Room 2641-S, Stop 0224, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0224. Telephone
(202)720-2145, facsimile
(202)690-1718, or e-mail *darryl.earnest@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866; and, therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities and has determined that its implementation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. There are an estimated 35,000 cotton growers in the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS cotton classing services annually, and the majority of these cotton growers are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). Continuing the user fee at the 2005 crop level as stated will not significantly affect small businesses as defined in the RFA because:
(1)The fee represents a very small portion of the cost-per-unit currently borne by those entities utilizing the services. (The 2005 user fee for classification services was $1.85 per bale; the fee for the 2006 crop would be maintained at $1.85 per bale; the 2006 crop is estimated at 21,000,000 bales).
(2)The fee for services will not affect competition in the marketplace; and
(3)The use of classification services is voluntary. For the 2005 crop, 23,703,000 bales were produced; and, almost all of these bales were voluntarily submitted by growers for the classification service.
(4)Based on the average price paid to growers for cotton from the 2004 crop of 41.6 cents per pound, 500 pound bales of cotton are worth an average of $208 each. The proposed user fee for classification services, $1.85 per bale, is less than one percent of the value of an average bale of cotton. Paperwork Reduction Act In compliance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320), which implemented the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection requirements contained in the provisions to be amended by this proposed rule have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-AC43. It is anticipated that the proposed changes, if adopted, would be made effective July 1, 2006, as provided by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act. Fees for Classification Under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927 The user fee charged to cotton producers for High Volume Instrument
(HVI)classification services under the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 473a) was $1.85 per bale during the 2005 harvest season as determined by using the formula provided in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The fees cover salaries, costs of equipment and supplies, and other overhead costs, including costs for administration, and supervision. This proposed rule establishes the user fee charged to producers for HVI classification at $1.85 per bale during the 2006 harvest season. Public Law 102-237 amended the formula in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987 for establishing the producer's classification fee so that the producer's fee is based on the prevailing method of classification requested by producers during the previous year. HVI classing was the prevailing method of cotton classification requested by producers in 2005. Therefore, the 2006 producer's user fee for classification service is based on the 2005 base fee for HVI classification. The fee was calculated by applying the formula specified in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended by Public Law 102-237. The 2005 base fee for HVI classification exclusive of adjustments, as provided by the Act, was $2.37 per bale. An increase of 3.29 percent, or 8 cents per bale, due to the implicit price deflator of the gross domestic product added to the $2.37 would result in a 2006 base fee of $2.45 per bale. The formula in the Act provides for the use of the percentage change in the implicit price deflator of the gross national product (as indexed for the most recent 12-month period for which statistics are available). However, gross *national* product has been replaced by gross *domestic* product by the Department of Commerce as a more appropriate measure for the short-term monitoring and analysis of the U.S. economy. The number of bales to be classed by the United States Department of Agriculture from the 2006 crop is estimated at 20,268,150 bales. The 2006 base fee was decreased 15 percent based on the estimated number of bales to be classed (1 percent for every 100,000 bales or portion thereof above the base of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum decreased adjustment of 15 percent). This percentage factor amounts to a 37 cents per bale reduction and was subtracted from the 2006 base fee of $2.45 per bale, resulting in a fee of $2.08 per bale. However, with a fee of $2.08 per bale, the projected operating reserve would be 35.74 percent. The Act specifies that the Secretary shall not establish a fee which, when combined with other sources of revenue, will result in a projected operating reserve of more than 25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $2.08 must be reduced by 23 cents per bale, to $1.85 per bale, to provide an ending accumulated operating reserve for the fiscal year of not more than 25 percent of the projected cost of operating the program. This would establish the 2006 season fee at $1.85 per bale. Accordingly, section 28.909, paragraph
(b)would reflect the continuation of the HVI classification fee at $1.85 per bale. As provided for in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended, a 5 cent per bale discount would continue to be applied to voluntary centralized billing and collecting agents as specified in section 28.909 (c). Growers or their designated agents receiving classification data would continue to incur no additional fees if classification data is requested only once. The fee for each additional retrieval of classification data in section 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per bale. The fee in section 28.910(b) for an owner receiving classification data from the National database would remain at 5 cents per bale, and the minimum charge of $5.00 for services provided per monthly billing period would remain the same. The provisions of section 28.910(c) concerning the fee for new classification memoranda issued from the National database for the business convenience of an owner without reclassification of the cotton will remain the same at 15 cents per bale or a minimum of $5.00 per sheet. The fee for review classification in section 28.911 would be maintained at $1.85 per bale. The fee for returning samples after classification in section 28.911 would remain at 40 cents per sample. A 15-day comment period is provided for public comments. This period is appropriate because it is anticipated that the proposed changes, if adopted, would be made effective July 1, 2006, as provided by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28 Administrative practice and procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, Grades, Market news, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standards, Staples, Testing, Warehouses. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 28—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 28, subpart D, continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471-476. 2. In § 28.909, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 28.909 Costs.
(b)The cost of High Volume Instrument
(HVI)cotton classification service to producers is $1.85 per bale. 3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 28.911 Review classification.
(a)* * * The fee for review classification is $1.85 per bale. Dated: April 14, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-5940 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 58 [Docket Number DA-05-04] RIN 0581-AC55 Increase in Fees for Federal Dairy Grading and Inspection Services AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is proposing to increase, by approximately 10 percent, the hourly fees charged for Federal dairy grading and inspection services. Dairy grading and inspection services are voluntary and are financed through user-fees assessed to participants in the program. These revisions are necessary in order to recover, as nearly as practicable, the increase in salaries of Federal employees, the increase in Agency costs, and to ensure that the Dairy Grading Branch operates on a financially self-supporting basis. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule to Dana H. Coale, Deputy Administrator, Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0225, room 2968—South, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0225. Comments may be faxed to
(202)690-3410. Comments should be submitted in duplicate. Comments may also be electronically submitted to *Dana.Coale@usda.gov* or *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments should reference docket number DA-05-04 and note the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be available for public inspection at the above location during regular business hours. Comments received also will be made available over the Internet in the rulemaking section of the AMS Web site *http://www.ams.usda.gov/rulemaking.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana H. Coale, Dairy Programs
(202)720-4392. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 This proposed rule has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not retroactive. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Pursuant to the requirement set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. It has been determined that its provisions would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. For the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a dairy products manufacturer is a “small business” if it has fewer than 500 employees. If a plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that collectively exceed the 500 employee limit, the plant will be considered a large business even if the local plant has fewer than 500 employees. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, the Dairy Grading Branch, AMS, provides voluntary Federal inspection and dairy product grading services to about 350 plants. About 210 of these users are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201). Manufacturing plants participating in the voluntary plant inspection program have their facility inspected against established USDA “General Specifications for Dairy Plants Approved for USDA Inspection and Grading Service” construction and sanitation requirements. Dairy products manufactured in facilities complying with the USDA inspection requirements are eligible to have their output graded against official quality standards and specifications established by AMS and certain contract provisions between buyer and seller. Products tested and graded by the Dairy Grading Branch have certificates issued describing the product's quality and condition. AMS continually reviews its cost structure to assure it is operating efficiently while maintaining the resources necessary to meet industry's demand for services. Periodically, fees must be adjusted to ensure that the program remains financially self-supporting. To reduce costs, the Dairy Grading Branch has continued to automate its business practices. Progress to date has been significant and has resulted in savings equal to two staff years to the program. Further enhancements in automated business practices will continue to improve the efficiency and timeliness of providing inspection and grading services and information to users of these services. Employee salaries and benefits account for nearly 73 percent of the operating costs of the Dairy Grading Branch. Since the last fee increase in 2004 (69 FR 8797), annual salary increases and locality adjustments have resulted in an increase in employee salaries of 8.3 percent. As a result, annual salary and benefit costs to the program for 2006 are approximately $240,000 more. Inflation raised non-salary costs approximately 6.0 percent through 2005, and it is expected that non-salary operating expenses will increase an additional 3.0 percent in 2006. Current revenue projections using Dairy Grading Branch's current fee schedule will not provide income sufficient to cover these escalating program operation costs and maintain reserves (4 months of costs) according to AMS policy (AMS Directive 408.1). Since projected revenues will not cover program costs while maintaining an adequate reserve, the Dairy Grading Branch will be put in an unstable financial position that will adversely affect the ability to provide dairy inspection and grading services. Without a fee increase, total revenue projections for Fiscal Year
(FY)2006 are $4.980 million. Total costs for the same period of time are projected to be $5.778 million. The shortfall, if allowed to continue, will reduce the trust fund balance to $1.578 million or 3.3 months of operating reserve at the end of FY 2006 which is below Agency policy. With the proposed fee increase effective April 1, 2006, FY 2006 revenues are projected at $5.227 million. AMS estimates these fee increases will provide the Dairy Grading Branch an additional $504,000 annually to recover program costs and to provide for continued automation of business practices. This rule will raise the fees charged to businesses for voluntary plant inspections, grading services for dairy and related products, and the evaluation of food processing equipment. However, the impact on all businesses, including small entities is very similar. Even though fees will be increased approximately 9.7% for non-resident services and 10.5% for continuous resident services, these fee increases should not significantly affect these entities. These businesses are under no obligation to use these voluntary user-fee based services and any decision on their part to discontinue the use of the services would not prevent them from marketing their products. A review of reporting requirements was completed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). It was determined that this rule would have no impact on reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for entities currently using voluntary Federal dairy inspection and grading services because they would remain identical to the current requirements. This notice does not require additional information collection that requires clearance by OMB. The primary sources of data used to complete the forms are routinely used in most business transactions. Forms require only a minimal amount of information which can be supplied without data processing equipment or a trained statistical staff. Thus, the information collection and reporting burden is relatively small. Requiring the same information from all participating dairy plants does not significantly disadvantage any plant that is smaller than the industry average. Proposed Action The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621, *et seq.* ), to provide voluntary Federal dairy inspection and grading services to facilitate the orderly marketing of dairy products and to enable consumers to obtain the quality of dairy products they desire. The AMA also provides for the collection of reasonable fees from users of the Federal dairy inspection and grading services to cover the cost of providing these services. The hourly fees are established by distributing the program's projected operating costs over the estimated service-revenue hours provided to users. AMS continually reviews its cost structure to assure it is operating efficiently while maintaining the resources necessary to meet industry's demand for services. Periodically, fees must be adjusted to ensure that the program remains financially self-supporting. To reduce costs, the Dairy Grading Branch has continued to automate its business practices. Progress to date has been significant and has resulted in savings equal to two staff years to the program. Further enhancements in automated business practices will continue to improve the efficiency and timeliness of providing inspection and grading services and information to users of these services. Employee salaries and benefits account for nearly 73 percent of the operating costs of the Dairy Grading Branch. Since the last fee increase in 2004 (69CFR8797), annual salary increases and locality adjustments have resulted in an increase in employee salaries of 8.3 percent. As a result, annual salary and benefit costs to the program for 2006 are approximately $240,000 more. Inflation raised non-salary costs approximately 6.0 percent through 2005, and it is expected that non-salary operating expenses will increase an additional 3.0 percent in 2006. Current revenue projections using Dairy Grading Branch's current fee schedule will not provide income sufficient to cover these escalating program operation costs and maintain reserves (4 months of costs) according to AMS policy (AMS Directive 408.1). Since projected revenues will not cover program costs while maintaining an adequate reserve, the Dairy Grading Branch will be put in an unstable financial position that will adversely affect the ability to provide dairy inspection and grading services. Without a fee increase, total revenue projections for FY 2006 are $4.980 million. Total costs for the same period of time are projected to be $5.778 million. The shortfall, if allowed to continue, will reduce the trust fund balance to $1.578 million or 3.3 months of operating reserve at the end of FY 2006 which is below Agency policy. With the proposed fee increase effective April 1, 2006, FY 2006 revenues are projected at $5.227 million. In view of the above considerations, AMS proposes to increase the hourly fees associated with Federal dairy grading and inspection services. Currently the fees are $57.00 per hour for continuous resident services and $62.00 per hour for non-resident services. The proposed increases would result in fees of $63.00 per hour for continuous resident services and $68.00 per hour for non-resident services between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The proposed fees represent increases of $6.00 per hour (10.5 percent) for continuous resident and $6.00 per hour (9.7 percent) for non-resident services. The fee for non-resident services between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. would be $74.80 per hour. For services performed in excess of 8 hours per day and for services performed on Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays, 1 1/2 times the base fees would apply and result in increases to $94.50 per hour for resident grading and to $102.00 per hour for non-resident grading services. AMS estimates these fee increases will provide the Dairy Grading Branch an additional $504,000 annually to recover program costs including providing for continued automation of business practices. A 30-day comment period is provided for interested persons to comment on this proposed rule. This period is appropriate in order to implement, as early as possible in FY 2006, any fee changes adopted as a result of this rulemaking action. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 58 Dairy Products, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reason set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part 58 be amended as follows: PART 58—GRADING AND INSPECTION, GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVED PLANTS AND STANDARDS FOR GRADES OF DAIRY PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 58 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. § 58.43 [Amended] 2. In § 58.43, “$62.00” is removed and “$68.00” is added in its place, and “$68.20” is removed and “$74.80” is added in its place. § 58.45 [Amended] 3. In § 58.45 “$57.00” is removed and “$63.00” is added in its place. Dated: April 14, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-5941 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1290 [Docket No. FV06-1290-1 PR] RIN 0581-AC59 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program; Notice of Request for Approval of a New Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is proposing regulations to administer the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. This proposed rule is intended to establish eligibility and application requirements, the review and approval process, and grant administration procedures for the SCBGP. The SCBGP would be implemented under section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note). This rule also announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's intention to request approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)of the new information collection requirements necessary to implement the SCBGP. DATES: Comments received by May 22, 2006, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from this proposal must be received by June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this action. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0243, Washington, DC 20250-0243; Fax:
(202)690-0102; E-mail: *scblockgrants@usda.gov;* or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Comments concerning the information collection requirements should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB: Attention: Desk Officer for AMS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. FV06-1290-1 PR. Comments concerning the information requirements also should be sent to the Docket Clerk at the above address. Comments shall reference docket number FV06-1290-1 PR and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/scbgp.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trista Etzig, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0243, Washington, DC 20250-0243; Telephone:
(202)690-4942; Fax:
(202)690-0102; or E-mail: *trista.etzig@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Public Law 104-4 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State and local governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State and local governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires Federal agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule (2 U.S.C. 1535). This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State and local governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.169, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983). Executive Order 12612 It has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule would not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Agricultural Marketing Service certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-534, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). This rule only will impact State departments of agriculture that apply for grant funds. States include the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The States are not small entities under the Act. Authority for a Specialty Crop Block Grant Program The proposed program is intended to accomplish the goals of increasing fruit, vegetable, and nut consumption and improving the competitiveness of United States specialty crop producers. The SCBGP is authorized under section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note). Section 101 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to States for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to be used by State departments of agriculture solely to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. This proposal also invites comments on the reporting and recordkeeping provisions that would be generated by this proposed rule. The information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposed rule are explained in more detail in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this rule. Background The Fruit and Vegetable Program will periodically announce that applications may be submitted for participation in a “Specialty Crop Block Grant Program” (SCBGP), which will be administered by personnel of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Periodically, funding would be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to provide specialty crop block grants. To the extent that funds are available, each year the AMS will publish a **Federal Register** notice announcing the program and soliciting grant applications. Subject to the appropriation of funds, each State that applies is to receive at least $100,000 to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. In addition, each State will receive an amount that represents the proportion of the value of specialty crop production in the state in relation to the national value of specialty crop production using the latest available complete specialty crop production data set in all states whose applications are accepted. All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are eligible to participate. “Specialty crops” for the purpose of this rule, means fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops (including floriculture). SCBGP applications will be accepted from any State department of agriculture, including the agency, commission, or department of a State government responsible for agriculture within the State. Section 1290.6 prescribes the application procedure that includes a State plan to indicate how grant funds will be utilized to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops using measurable expected outcomes. Applications can be submitted for projects up to 3 calendar years in length. Applicants wishing to serve multi-state projects must submit one application by the State assuming the coordinating role. Section 1290.8 prescribes that under the SCBGP program, the AMS will enter into agreements with those State departments of agriculture whose applications have been approved. The State department of agriculture will assure that the State will comply with the requirements of the State plan. The State department of agriculture will also assure that funds shall supplement the expenditure of State funds in support of specialty crops grown in that State, rather than replace State funds. The AMS will provide the entire funding to the approved applicants by a one-time combined electronic transfer. SCBGP participants must deposit funds in insured, interest-bearing accounts and remit to AMS interest earned in accordance with 7 CFR 3015 and 3016. Section 1290.9 prescribes the reporting and oversight requirements. If the grant period is more than one year, State departments of agriculture are required to submit an annual performance report(s) and a final performance report evaluating their project(s) using the measurable outcomes presented in the State plan, as well as a final financial report. If the grant period is less than a year, State departments of agriculture are required to submit a final performance report and a final financial report. Section 1290.10 prescribes the audit requirements of the State. The State is required to conduct an audit of the expenditures of SCBGP funds in accordance with Government Auditing Standards not later than 60 days after expiration of the grant period. Not later than 30 days after completion of the audit, the State shall submit a copy of the audit results with an executive summary to AMS. AMS is inviting comments on the proposed rule, especially on the definition of “enhancing the competitiveness” of specialty crops, and on how to incorporate outcome measures into the State plan. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the AMS announces its intention to request approval by OMB of a new information collection. *Title:* Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. *OMB Number:* 0581-New. *Type of Request:* New Information Collection. *Expiration Date of Approval:* 3 years from date of OMB approval. *Abstract:* The information collection requirements in this request are applied only to those State departments of agriculture who voluntarily participate in the SCBGP. The information collected is needed for the implementation of the SCBGP, to determine a State department of agriculture's eligibility in the program, and to certify that grant participants are complying with applicable program regulations. Data collected is the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and to fulfill the intent of section 101 of the Competitiveness Act of 2004. State departments of agriculture who wish to participate in the SCBGP would have to submit standard form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance”, approved under OMB#4040-0004. After receipt of the SF-424, the State department of agriculture would have to submit SF-424B, “Assurances-Non-Construction Programs”, approved under OMB#0348-0040 as part of the grant agreement to the AMS. The State department of agriculture would then submit to the AMS 90 days after the expiration date of the grant period SF269 “Financial Status Report (Long Form)”, if the project had program income, approved under OMB#0348-0039, or SF269A “Financial Status Report (Short Form)”, approved under OMB#0348-0038. Completed applications must also include a State plan to show how grant funds will be utilized to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response. *Respondents:* State departments of agriculture. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52 (All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia). *Estimated Number of Responses:* 52. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 156 hours. After approval of a grant application, State departments of agriculture would have to enter into a grant agreement with AMS by reading and signing the grant agreement. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .083 hours per response. *Respondents:* State departments of agriculture. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52 (All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia). *Estimated Number of Responses:* 52. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 4.32 hours. On average, AMS does not expect a grant period to go beyond three calendar years, so State departments of agriculture would have to submit to AMS annual performance reports within 90 days after the first year of the grant agreement and within 90 days after the second year of the grant agreement. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. *Respondents:* State departments of agriculture. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52 (All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia). *Estimated Number of Responses:* 52. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 2. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 104 hours. If the grant period goes beyond 3 calendar years, a State department of agriculture would have to submit a letter to AMS requesting a grant period extension. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response. *Respondents:* State departments of agriculture. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5 (10% of the 52 respondents). *Estimated Number of Responses:* 5. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 0.85 hours. A State department of agriculture would have to submit a final performance report to AMS within 90 days following the expiration date of the grant period. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response. *Respondents:* State departments of agriculture. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52 (All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia). *Estimated Number of Responses:* 52. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 78 hours. No later than 60 days after expiration of the grant period, a State would be required to conduct an audit of SCBGP grant funds. An audit report/executive summary would be required to be submitted to AMS no later than 30 days after completion of the audit. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 hours per response. *Respondents:* State departments of agriculture. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52 (All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia). *Estimated Number of Responses:* 52. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 156 hours. The SCBGP is expected to accomplish the goals of increasing fruit, vegetable, and nut consumption and improving the competitiveness of United States specialty crop producers. This program would not be maintained by any other agency, therefore, the requested information will not be available from any other existing records. AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. The SF forms and State plan can be filled out electronically and printed out for submission or filled out electronically and submitted as an attachment through Grants.gov. The annual performance reports, final performance report, and the audit report/executive summary can be submitted electronically. The grant agreement requires an original signature and can be submitted by mail. Finally, State departments of agriculture would be required to retain records pertaining to the SCBGP for 3 years after completion of the grant period or until final resolution of any audit findings or litigation claims relating to the SCBGP. This is a part of normal business practice and consistent with USDA regulations (7 CFR parts 3015 and 3016). The estimated one-time cost for all State departments of agriculture in completing the State plan is $9,980. This total cost was calculated by multiplying the estimated 499 total burden hours by $20 per hour (a sum deemed reasonable, shall the respondents be compensated for this time). Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments concerning the information collection shall reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . Comments concerning the information collection requirements should be sent to the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB: Attention: Desk Officer for AMS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. FV06-1290-1 PR. Comments may also be sent to Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0243, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0243; Fax:
(202)690-0102; or E-mail: *scblockgrants@usda.gov.* Comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address. 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. A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed information collection. A 30-day period is provided concerning comments addressing the provisions of this proposed rule. This period is deemed appropriate in order to proceed with final regulations, if adopted, that will enable application processing and approval of grants during this fiscal year. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1290 Specialty crop block grants, Agriculture, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under authority of 7 U.S.C. 1621 note and Public Law 108-465, 7 CFR chapter 1290 is proposed to be amended as set forth below: 1. A new part 1290 is added to read as follows: PART 1290—SPECIALTY CROP BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Sec. 1290.1 Purpose. 1290.2 Definitions. 1290.3 Eligible grant applicants. 1290.4 Eligible grant project. 1290.5 Restrictions and limitations on grant funds. 1290.6 Completed application. 1290.7 Review of grant applications. 1290.8 Grant agreements. 1290.9 Reporting and oversight requirements. 1290.10 Audit requirements. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621 note. § 1290.1 Purpose. Pursuant to the authority conferred by section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note), AMS will make grants to States to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein and other applicable federal statutes and regulations including, but not limited to, 7 CFR part 3016. § 1290.2 Definitions.
(a)*AMS* means the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
(b)*Application* means application for Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.
(c)*Grant period* means the period of time from when the grant agreement is signed to the completion of all SCBGP projects.
(d)*Outcome measure* means an event or condition that is external to the project and that is of direct importance to the intended beneficiaries and/or the public.
(e)*Project* means all proposed activities to be funded by the SCBGP.
(f)*Specialty crop* means fruit and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops (including floriculture).
(g)*State* means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(h)*State department of agriculture* means the agency, commission, or department of a State government responsible for agriculture within the State. § 1290.3 Eligible grant applicants. Eligible grant applicants are State departments of agriculture from the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico § 1290.4 Eligible grant project.
(a)To be eligible for a grant, the project(s) must enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. Priority will be given to fresh specialty crop projects.
(b)To be eligible for a grant, the project(s) must be completed 3 calendar years after the grant agreement prescribed in section 1290.8 is signed. However, for cause, an extension of that deadline may be granted by AMS on a case by case basis with a written request from the State. § 1290.5 Restrictions and limitations on grant funds.
(a)Grant funds may not be used to fund political activities in accordance with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508 and 7324-7326).
(b)All travel expenses associated with SCBGP projects must follow Federal Travel Regulations (41 CFR Chapters 300-304) unless State travel requirements are in place.
(c)Grant funds shall supplement the expenditure of State funds in support of specialty crops grown in that State, rather than replace State funds. § 1290.6 Completed application. Completed applications shall be clear and succinct and shall include the following documentation satisfactory to AMS.
(1)Completed applications must include an SF-424 “Application for Federal Assistance”.
(2)Completed applications must also include a State plan to show how grant funds will be utilized to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. The state plan shall include the following:
(i)Cover page. Include the lead agency for administering the plan and an abstract of 200 words or less for each proposed project.
(ii)Project purpose. Clearly state the specific issue, problem, interest, or need to be addressed. Explain why each project is important and timely.
(iii)Potential Impact. Discuss the number of people or operations affected, the intended beneficiaries of each project, and/or potential economic impact if such data are available and relevant to the project(s).
(iv)Financial Feasibility. For each project, provide budget estimates for the total project cost. Indicate what percentage of the budget covers administrative costs.
(v)Expected Measurable Outcomes. Describe at least two or three, discrete, quantifiable, and measurable outcomes that directly and meaningfully support each projects purpose. The outcome measures must define an event or condition that is external to the project and that is of direct importance to the intended beneficiaries and/or the public.
(vi)Goal(s). Describe the overall goal(s) in one or two sentences for each project.
(vii)Work Plan. Explain briefly how each goal and measurable outcome will be accomplished for each project. Be clear about who will do the work. Include appropriate time lines.
(viii)Project Oversight. Describe the oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grant activities to ensure proper and efficient administration.
(ix)Project Commitment. Describe how all grant partners commit to and work toward the goals and outcome measures of the proposed project(s).
(x)Multi-state Projects. If the project is a multi-state project, describe how the States are going to collaborate effectively with related projects with one state assuming the coordinating role. § 1290.7 Review of grant applications.
(a)Applications will be reviewed and approved for conformance with the provisions in § 1290.6. AMS may contact the applicant for additional information or clarification.
(b)Incomplete applications as of the deadline for submission will not be considered. § 1290.8 Grant agreements.
(a)After approval of a grant application, AMS will enter into a grant agreement with the State department of agriculture.
(b)AMS grant agreements will include at a minimum the following:
(1)The activities in the approved State plan.
(2)Total amount of Federal financial assistance that will be advanced.
(3)Terms and conditions pursuant to which AMS will fund the project(s). § 1290.9 Reporting and oversight requirements.
(a)An annual performance report will be required of all State department's of agriculture within 90 days after the completion of the first year of the project(s), until the expiration date of the grant period. If the grant period is one year or less, then only a final performance report (see paragraph
(b)of this section) is required. The annual performance report shall include the following:
(1)Briefly summarize activities performed, targets, and/or performance goals achieved during the reporting period to meet project outcome measures.
(2)Note unexpected delays or impediments as well as favorable or unusual developments.
(3)Outline work to be performed during the next reporting period.
(4)Comment on the level of grant funds expended to date.
(b)A final performance report will be required by the State department of agriculture within 90 days following the expiration date of the grant period. The final progress report shall include the following:
(1)An outline of the issue, problem, interest, or need.
(2)How the issue or problem was approached via the project.
(3)How the annual outcome measures of the project were achieved.
(4)Results, conclusions, and lessons learned.
(5)How progress has been made to achieve long term outcome measures.
(6)Additional information available (e.g. publications, Web sites).
(7)Contact person for each project with telephone number and e-mail address.
(c)A final SF-269A “Financial Status Report (Short Form)” (SF-269 “Financial Status Report (Long Form)” if the project(s) had program income) is required within 90 days following the expiration date of the grant period.
(d)AMS will monitor States, as it determines necessary, to assure that projects are completed in accordance with the approved State plan. If AMS, after reasonable notice to a State, finds that there has been a failure by the State to comply substantially with any provision or requirement of the State plan, AMS may disqualify, for one or more years, the State from receipt of future grants under the SCBGP.
(e)States shall diligently monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, project work within designated time periods is being accomplished, and other performance measure are being achieved. § 1290.10 Audit requirements. Each year that a State receives a grant under the SCBGP, a State is required to conduct an audit of the expenditures of SCBGP funds in accordance with Government auditing Standards (Government Auditing Standards 2003 Revision GAO-03-673G). The audit shall be conducted no later than 60 days after the expiration date of the grant period. The State shall submit to AMS not later than 30 days after completion of the audit, a copy of the audit results with an executive summary. Dated: April 14, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-5944 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 8 CFR Parts 103 and 299 [DHS Docket No. USCIS-2005-0062] RIN 1615-AB19 Establishment of a Genealogy Program AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule proposes to establish a Genealogy Program within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process requests for historical records of deceased individuals. Currently, such requests are processed as Freedom of Information Act requests by the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act program adding unnecessary delays to the process. A separate Genealogy Program would ensure a timely response to requests for genealogical and historical records. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2005-0062, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* Include DHS Docket No. USCIS-2005-0062 in the subject line of the message. • Mail: The Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2005-0062 on your correspondence. This mailing address may also be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions. • Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. Contact Telephone Number is
(202)272-8377. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ave Maria Sloane, Chief—Genealogy Program, Office of Records Services (ORS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529, telephone
(202)272-8240. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part I—Public Participation Part II—Background and Purpose A. Historical Records B. Genealogical Research Requests Part III—New Program Functions A. Operation of the New Genealogy Program B. Index Search Request C. Historical Records Request D. Procedures for Requesting an Index Search or Search for Historical Records E. Personal Information Concerning Children of the Subject of the Record F. Requests by Historical and Genealogical Researchers Falling Outside the Genealogy Program G. Reference Services Provided by This New Program H. Users of Genealogy Program Services I. Requests for Historical Records and the FOIA/PA Program J. Requests for Records Where the Requester is Not Sure the Records are Historical Part IV—Determination of Fees A. Number of Requests B. Processing Tracking C. Description of Two Services D. Estimating Requests and Receipts E. Record Copy Fee Where the Copy is Illegible F. Fee Waivers Part V—Regulatory Requirements A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 D. Executive Order 12866 E. Executive Order 13132 F. Executive Order 12988 G. Paperwork Reduction Act List of Subjects PART 103—Powers and Duties; Availability of Records PART 299—Immigration Forms Part I—Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also invite comments that relate to the economic, privacy, or federalism affects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in developing these procedures will make reference to a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and DHS docket No. USCIS-2005-0062 for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to * http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Submitted comments may also be inspected at the Office of the Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. Part II—Background and Purpose The demand for historical records by historical and genealogical researchers, as well as other members of the public, has grown dramatically over the past several years. Currently, USCIS processes requests for historical records under USCIS' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)/Privacy Act
(PA)program. Historical records that are the subject of a FOIA request usually are released in full because the subjects of the requested documents are deceased and therefore no FOIA exemptions apply to withhold the information. *Cf.* OMB Guidelines, 40 FR 28948, 28951 (1975). The only exception is for classified historical records, which can only be released after being declassified. *See* Executive Order 12958, as amended by Executive Order 13292, 68 FR 15315 (March 28, 2003). Classified information is information that requires protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interest of national security. *See id.* The large volume of genealogical requests (average of 10,000 combined search and records requests per year over the last 4 years) received by USCIS FOIA/PA offices contributes to the USCIS FOIA/PA backlog. For this reason, it became apparent that the FOIA/PA program was not the most efficient means of processing requests for historical records. A separate Genealogy Program would create a dedicated program to serve this unique category of requesters. Removing genealogy research from the immense FOIA group of “all” requesters would improve service to historical researchers, genealogists, and other members of the public. It would also greatly reduce the number of FOIA requests and improve the ability of USCIS to respond to requests for other non-historical records and materials. Requesters making a request that qualifies as a genealogical research request for historical records under this rule would submit such a request directly with the Genealogy Program. If the Genealogy Program determines that the request does not qualify as a genealogical research request, it would return the request (along with any fees submitted with the request) to the requester and inform the requester to resubmit the request to the USCIS FOIA/PA office for processing under the FOIA. Conversely, if a requester would send a request to the USCIS FOIA/PA office that is determined by that office to qualify as a genealogical research request, the USCIS FOIA/PA office would return the request to the requester and inform the requester to resubmit the request to the Genealogy Program for processing. In proposed 8 CFR 103.40(a), this rule defines the term, “genealogical research request.” In proposed 8 CFR 103.39, this rule describes what records qualify as historical. The terms, “historical records” and “genealogical research request” are discussed below. A. Historical Records The USCIS Genealogy Program will apply to “historical records,” a new term introduced by this proposed rule. Historical records are files, forms, and documents collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS)and maintained by USCIS that include: • Naturalization Certificate Files; • Forms AR-2; • Visa Files; • Registry Files; and • A-Files numbered below 8 million. Naturalization Certificate Files (C-Files) are records from September 27, 1906 to April 1, 1956, relating to U.S. naturalizations and the issuance of evidence of naturalization or citizenship. Forms AR-2 are Alien Registration Forms on microfilm that were completed by all aliens age 14 and older who resided in or entered the United States between August 1, 1940 and March 31, 1944. These forms contain identification information, as well as information regarding the alien's employment and arrival to the United States. Visa Files are records from July 1, 1924 to March 31, 1944 containing the arrival information of immigrants admitted for permanent residence from July 1, 1924 to March 31, 1944 under the Immigration Act of 1924. Registry Files are records from March 2, 1929 to March 31, 1944 containing arrival information of immigrants who entered the United States prior to July 1, 1924, and for whom no arrival records could later be found. A-Files are case files on individuals containing all immigration records created or consolidated since April 1, 1944 to the present. This rule only deems historical those A-File records numbered below 8 million and containing documents dated prior to May 1, 1951. Other A-File records, therefore, will be subject to the FOIA/PA program. USCIS chose these two criteria as the dividing line because May 1, 1951 is the date that the 8 million series began, and is within the decade that the last record series prior to the advent of the A-File, C-Files, was closed. Designation of a record as historical neither speaks to the value or worth of any given record, nor relates to what the Archivist of the United States might designate as worthy of permanent preservation. Rather, this convention was employed by USCIS solely to identify records of advanced age for which there is high demand from genealogical researchers. Any record filed within any record system other than one identified as historical by this proposed rule, regardless of the date of the record or the subject's date of birth, will not be available under the Genealogy Program. Those records outside the scope of the Genealogy Program can still be requested through the FOIA/PA or other available programs. B. Genealogical Research Requests This proposed rule defines a genealogical research request as a request from a member of the public for searches and/or copies of historical records relating to a deceased person. Requests to locate USCIS documents to support a separate application or petition for benefits from USCIS would not meet this definition. For example, requests to replace a lost naturalization certificate would not qualify as genealogical research requests. The chart below lists the records that the public would be able to request from the Genealogy Program versus the records that the public would be able to request from the FOIA/PA office. Genealogy program FOIA/PA office Files of deceased subjects Files of living subjects. C-Files from 9/27/1906 to 4/1/1956 Naturalization records on or after 4/1/1956. Visa Files from 7/1/1924 to 5/1/1951 Visa records on or after 5/1/1951 in A-Files. A-Files below 8 million and documents therein dated prior to 5/1/1951. A-Files above 8 million and documents therein dated on or after 5/1/1951 Registry Files from 3/2/1929 to 3/31/1944 and registry records from 4/1/1944 to 4/30/1951 Registry records on or after 5/1/1951 in A-Files. AR-2 Files from 8/1/1940 to 3/31/1944 and Alien Registration Forms from 3/31/1944 to 4/30/1951 in A-Files Alien Registration Forms on or after 5/1/1951 in A-Files. Part III—New Program Functions Currently, all requests for historical records are processed by the USCIS FOIA/PA program. The FOIA/PA program depends upon the Office of Records Services/Office of Records Management (ORS/ORM) offices to search indices and locate and retrieve responsive records and files. If ORS/ORM does not find any records that respond to the FOIA request, ORS/ORM will transmit a “no record” response to FOIA/PA and FOIA/PA will inform the requester that no records have been found that respond to the FOIA request. If ORS/ORM provides responsive records to the FOIA/PA program, FOIA/PA professionals review the documents for any issues arising under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts and mail copies of the records to the requester. Genealogical requests are identified as “third party” requests (requests from other than the subject), and since the subjects of the requests are deceased, the deceased subjects themselves no longer have privacy interests in the records. *See* OMB Guidelines, 40 FR 28948, 28951 (deceased persons do not enjoy Privacy Act protections); Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy, Freedom of Information Act Guide (May 2004) (noting “longstanding FOIA rule that death extinguishes one's privacy rights”), available at *http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption6.htm#privacy.* *But cf. National Archives and Records Admin.* v. *Favish* , 541 U.S. 157
(2004)(holding that surviving relatives may have protectible privacy interest in “death images of the deceased,” personal details about circumstances surrounding individual's death, and other information concerning deceased where disclosure would cause “a disruption of the relatives' peace of minds”). As a result, genealogical requests for unclassified records routinely pass through the FOIA/PA program without requiring any analysis for exemption application under FOIA, and serve only to contribute to the FOIA/PA backlog. The new Genealogy Program would search indices and locate and retrieve responsive records and files. Once a requester has demonstrated that the subject of the record is deceased by providing a death certificate, obituary, or other form as proof of death, routine record copies and information would be reviewed and mailed directly to the requester. The new Genealogy Program would serve the public demand in a more expeditious fashion. The program would put requesters and the genealogy staff in direct communication thus providing a dedicated queue and point of contact for genealogists and other researchers seeking access only to those records described as historical records as defined under 8 CFR 103.39. Finally, the new Genealogy Program would either release historical records as requested, or, rather than deny release, redirect the requester to the FOIA/PA Program for further consideration of the request. If the FOIA/PA Program ultimately denies the requested information, the requester may seek an appeal of the FOIA/PA denial under the current procedures specified in 6 CFR 5, 8 CFR 103.10(c), and 8 CFR 103.10(d)(3). A. Operation of the New Genealogy Program Due to the nature of historical records, it is hard to predict what types of records (if any) exist on a given immigrant. ORS/ORM must search various indices before determining whether any record exists, how many separate records exist, and where those records might be located. The actual location and retrieval of records involves a separate process, which itself varies according to record format (microfilm or textual). Combining both activities (index searching and record retrieval/processing) into one request would result in extraordinarily high fees for historical and genealogical researchers, especially for those for whom no record is found. For this reason, USCIS proposes separating index search requests from record copy requests, and proposes that each be requested separately from the Genealogy Program. Researchers would choose from one of two types of requests depending on the amount of information they have available regarding records of their immigrant ancestor. They could:
(1)Request a search of the index if they are unable to identify a specific historical record, or
(2)request that they be provided copies of historical records the requester can identify by file number. B. Index Search Request Most researchers would begin with a request for a search of the index in order to obtain the information necessary to request a specific record. Upon receipt of an index search request, the Genealogy Program would search the indices for references to the subject named in the request. If found, it would send all pertinent information about each record indicated ( *i.e.* , file number, location, or other identifying information) to the researcher. If no record is found, the researcher would be notified. Genealogy Program index searches may result in locating records no longer maintained by USCIS. The public would be able to contact the Genealogy Program for information regarding which records are no longer maintained by USCIS. Search results indicating a naturalization record in USCIS custody also will contain information directing researchers to alternate sources for copies of court naturalization records held by the National Archives or by state and local courthouses. Search results indicating a Visa File also will contain information allowing a researcher to locate ship passenger arrival list records at the National Archives. All index information about all records would be provided to the requester. C. Historical Records Request Using information obtained from the index search (or found during prior research), researchers also could submit a request for records in which they identify the record sought to the Genealogy Program Office. In response to a record request, the Genealogy Program Office would retrieve the specified record for duplication, review, and release. D. Procedures for Requesting an Index Search or Search for Historical Records Requests could be submitted via the Internet at a genealogy Web site to be developed for this purpose or by mailing a completed Form G-1041, Genealogy Search Request, or Form G-1041A, Genealogy Record Request, to the Genealogy Program Office. The success of each index search request would depend on the amount and accuracy of information provided by the researcher. No search could be initiated regarding an individual without at least a full name, year of birth, and country of birth. In cases of immigrants with common names, an exact date and place of birth, alternate spellings of the name and aliases, as well as an approximate date of arrival and/or the immigrant's residence at the time of naturalization, may be necessary to ensure a successful and definitive search. Records stored in different file series are located using a variety of methods, most of which require a specific file number. The most reliable record requests would be based on, and include, specific file identification data received from previous index search requests. The success of record requests submitted from researchers without any previous index search would depend entirely upon whether the researcher provides the exact information needed to retrieve the specific record sought. Full instructions on what information is needed to retrieve specific files would be available on the USCIS genealogy Web site and in pamphlet form. In addition, when a request is made for records of an immigrant whose date of birth is less than 100 years ago, the researcher would have to provide documentary evidence that the subject is deceased. For the purposes of the Genealogy Program, USCIS presumes that immigrants born more than 100 years ago are deceased. *Schrecker* v. *U.S. Dep't of Justice* , 349 F.3d 657, 664-65 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Thus, when the subject of a record request was born less than 100 years prior to the date of the request, primary or secondary documentary evidence of the subject's death would be required. The requestor would bear the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the Genealogy Program Office that the subject is deceased. Acceptable documentary evidence includes, but is not limited to death records, published obituaries, published death notices or published eulogies, church or bible records, photographs of gravestones, and/or copies of official documents relating to payment of death benefits. No records would be released in the case of an immigrant born less than 100 years prior to the request date until evidence of the subject's death is received. E. Personal Information Concerning Children of the Subject of the Record Information about a subject's children may be found in many historical records and may consist of the child's name, date of birth, place of birth, and residence as of the date of the record. The Genealogy Program will not release personal information concerning a subject's children. F. Requests by Historical and Genealogical Researchers Falling Outside the Genealogy Program Due to the history of individual immigrants, immigration and nationality benefits, and recordkeeping, some old immigrant records now exist within A-Files numbered above 8 million. As previously noted, A-Files numbered above 8 million are not considered historical records and could not be made available under the Genealogy Program. Researchers seeking A-Files numbered 8 million or above, or records dated after May 1, 1951, would have to request their ancestors' files under the FOIA/PA program. The Genealogy Program would provide those requesters the information necessary to submit a FOIA/PA request to the appropriate office. G. Reference Services Provided by This New Program In addition to standard information and instructions printed on USCIS Genealogical Search and Request forms (G-1041 and G-1041A), USCIS would provide reference materials in pamphlet form and on the USCIS Web site. Information for genealogists would include a review of various DHS record series, the information typically contained in those records, and instructions for filing requests. In addition, DHS would direct genealogists to resources containing information regarding immigration and naturalization records not in USCIS custody. Information for historical researchers would include descriptions of resources available at USCIS or the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA)that support the study of immigration records history, as well as the history of U.S. immigration law and policy. H. Users of Genealogy Program Services The primary user of the Genealogy Program would be individuals seeking records of their ancestors for genealogical and family history purposes. Additionally, USCIS anticipates a small number of requests to come from historians and social scientists seeking historical records of individual immigrants whom they can identify by name, date of birth, place of birth, or by file number, and from professional genealogists and researchers involved in their location. I. Requests for Historical Records and the FOIA/PA Program Under this proposed rule, all requests for records designated as historical records would no longer fall under the FOIA/PA program and would have to be submitted to the new Genealogy Program Office. The experience of the FOIA/PA program office is that those records identified as historical records in 8 CFR 103.39 are routinely released without need for redaction or withholding. This is why this new program is being proposed to serve customers who seek historical records. Once the final rule is published and effective, the FOIA/PA program will return all FOIA/PA requests for historical records and direct the researcher to submit a genealogy request. Of course, some genealogists will seek records not included within the definition of historical records, thus some genealogists will continue to be served by the FOIA/PA program office. As discussed above, with implementation of the Genealogy Program to satisfy requests for older, historical records, the FOIA/PA program will be able to focus on more current records presenting FOIA and privacy issues. J. Requests for Records Where the Requester Is Not Sure the Records Are Historical The Genealogy Program Office would accept search requests in which the subject likely is to be found in an historical record. If the search results reference any record not included within the definition of historical records, the Genealogy Program Office would transmit the file index information to the requestor and also include instructions for requesting that file under USCIS FOIA/PA guidelines. Part IV—Determination of Fees This rule proposes fee ranges for index searches and for copies of historical records as described in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1). USCIS invites the public to comment on the proposed fee ranges, considering in particular USCIS's estimated costs to run the Genealogy Program and the fees charged by other agencies providing similar services. In a final rule, USCIS will set one fee amount for each type of service. As provided by statute, these fees would be deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account. *See* 8 U.S.C. 1356(n), (t). The search fee recovers the full cost of the search. The costs involved in searching the DHS indices and transmitting search results to a requester are the same whether or not any record is found. Thus, the Genealogy Program Office could not refund the search fee if the requested records are not found by USCIS. Similarly, the Genealogy Program Office would charge a fee for all record services in which the requested record is located, regardless of whether or not it is determined that the record is subject to release. The Genealogy Program Office would refund a fee when the record request is based upon file information previously provided by the Genealogy Program Office in response to an index search request, or if the Genealogy Program Office is unable to locate the file when later requested under a Genealogy Record request. The fee ranges were set in accordance with section 286(t) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(t), which authorizes USCIS to set fees for providing research and information services at a level that will ensure the recovery of the full costs of providing all such services. Charts setting forth the full costs that formed the basis for the fee ranges proposed in this rule are included below. The full cost includes items such as management and personnel costs (salaries and benefits), physical overhead, consulting, materials and supplies, utilities, insurance, travel, and rent of building space and equipment. Full costs also include the cost of research and information collection, establishment of procedures and standards, and issuance of regulations. The fees also were set in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-25, which requires that user fees recover the full cost of services provided. A. Number of Requests The estimated total number of requests under the new program is projected at or in excess of 26,000 per year. The total number includes an estimated 15,250 search requests, 6,619 requests for copies of microfilmed records, and 4,728 requests for copies from textual files. These estimates are based on the annual number of genealogical FOIA/PA requests received in previous years and anticipated growth in requests. In the last four-year period, the USCIS FOIA/PA program received an average of 10,000 genealogical requests per year. These requests are for a combined index search and copy of records. These figures will be far greater in the Genealogy Program since the program will count a request for an index search separately from a request for a record copy. NARA receives a similar number of requests for copies of immigration records each year ( *i.e.* , 11,000 to 12,000 per year). While some requests may be discouraged by the imposition of fees, other potential users have informed the FOIA/PA program they would submit one or more genealogical request(s) if they could be assured a more expeditious response. Finally, USCIS expects in the short-term to receive requests from individuals who previously filed requests with the FOIA/PA program to request a second search under the new program. For these reasons, we expect the actual number of genealogical requests to increase, rather than decrease, under the new program. B. Processing Tracking USCIS has studied the methodologies to respond to search and retrieval requests. A number of efficiencies were proposed to better process the searches and request tracking. An automated system is being developed which will allow for quicker and more comprehensive searches, customer request and response tracking, and provide for better metrics to measure productivity. C. Description of Two Services USCIS proposes two separate costs for the separate services to be offered by the Genealogy Program. • The first cost relates to the index search service, which, in addition to the paperwork and data entry standard to processing all requests, requires a detailed search of the master index microfilm and other related microfilm indices. • The second cost relates to the retrieval, reproduction, and processing of historical records and files. This activity includes: Processing standard requests, identifying records stored on microfilm or at Federal Record Centers, preparing and submitting requests for those files at the Federal Record Centers to be pulled and shipped to the Genealogy Program Office, copying of records from microfilm or paper and the processing of those copies, reassembling files, shipping of files from and to a storage facility, and per-file fees paid to NARA for retrieving and refiling hard copy records. D. Estimating Requests and Receipts The estimate for requests and receipts is based on USCIS's experience in processing genealogical-type requests under the FOIA/PA program and the experience of other organizations offering genealogical resources. USCIS used weighted risk analysis to project the number of requests for searches, microfilm records, and textual records. USCIS also projected a five percent annual growth. The results of the analysis indicate that USCIS would receive about: 15,500 search requests in the first year; 6,500 requests for microfilmed records; and 5,000 requests for textual records. After determining the cost of different services and estimating the number of requests for each service submitted each year, it was possible to calculate annual costs over 2 years, as well as the start-up costs required to launch the new program. Start-Up and Recurring Costs Cost category Start-up Annual operating costs (acutal dollars) Year 1 Year 2 Office Furnishings $20,000 $0 $0 Personnel/Costs 15,000 675,000 675,000 Office Equipment 150,000 3,000 3,000 Travel 2,000 2,000 2,000 Training 8,375 5,000 5,000 Website and Lockbox fees 2,000 4,000 4,000 Postage 41,665 43,748 Equipment Repairs and Maintenance 2,000 2,000 Subscriptions/Publications/Association fees 500 1,000 1,000 Supplies 4,400 4,400 Design and Development 5,000 2,000 2,000 Operation and Maintenance of the search system for 10 users 260,250 270,660 Software Maintenance 3,000 3,000 Marketing 5,000 10,000 6,000 Subtotal 207,875 1,013,315 1,021,808 NARA charges (record request costs only) 34,000 35,000 Total 207,875 1,047,315 1,056,808 Fees to cover estimated costs were determined by computing the start-up costs and operating costs for the first 2 fiscal years. The total cost for each service was divided by the expected volume of requests over the same two-year period. The fees for the records request portion were adjusted (accounting for the slightly higher fee for record requests) by also factoring in the costs directly attributable, such as NARA pull fees for record requests and off-site record retrievals. Service Approximate requests— 2 years Volume Percent Costs (actual dollars)—2 years Yearly NARA costs for record requests only Allocated by percentage Total Yearly costs (except NARA) Start-up User fees (rounded) Index Search 31,000 57 $1,160,020 $118,489 $1,278,509 $41.00 Record Request: Micro-film 13,000 24 0.00 488,430 49,890 538,320 41.00 Textual 10,000 19 69,000 386,673 39,496 495,169 50.00 Total 54,000 69,000 2,035,123 207,875 2,311,998 Based upon this calculation and consideration of fees charged by other agencies for comparable services, discussed below, this rule proposes an estimated user fee range as follows:
(1)*Index search service:* This service is designed for customers who are unsure whether USCIS has any record of their ancestor, or who suspect a record exists but cannot identify that record by number. The index search service would identify any historical records relating to the subject and provide the researcher with all the information needed to request the record(s). The proposed fee range for this service is $16.00 to $45.00.
(2)*Record/file services:* This service is designed for customers who can identify a specific record or file to be retrieved, copied, reviewed, and released. Customers may identify one or more files in a single request. However, separate fees would apply to each file requested. The proposed fee range for this service is $16.00 to $45.00 for each file on microfilm retrieved, and $26.00 to $55.00 for each textual file retrieved. The Genealogy Program fee ranges proposed under this rule are comparable to the fees of similar institutions providing similar services. As previously noted, a flat fee both to search and/or retrieve all historical records would be excessively high in comparison to that of other agencies. For this reason, the Genealogy Program proposes to offer both a search service and a record retrieval service, each of which is based on the cost of providing that specific service and thus providing the requester the option of obtaining the additional information found. The proposed fee ranges were set to provide the best possible service to the public, including enhanced photocopies, other suggested sources to find information, and a better description of the information received than is now possible under the existing FOIA/PA processing. While USCIS considered the fees charged by similar organizations, no other organization provides exactly the same service because they do not hold precisely the same variety or volume of records. A description of comparable organizations, as well as the fees they charge, is provided as follows: The NARA field facilities hold Federal court copies of naturalization records and will search them, court by court, for a fee ranging from $1 to $10, depending on the rules of the facility. Several state archives hold state court copies of naturalization records and charge fees for searching those records, then charge additional fees for copying and shipping. State archive fees differ from state to state. For example, the North Dakota archives charge a $5 search fee, the Pennsylvania archives charge $10 per search, and the Connecticut archives charge non-residents $15 for searches. Still, many court copies of naturalization records are not centralized in any Federal or state archive but remain scattered among county and municipal courthouses. Some clerks of the court will provide records free, others charge fees ranging from $1 to $25, and others do not provide search assistance. USCIS also considered the fees to those paid by researchers to two other Federal agencies: NARA and the Social Security Administration (SSA). NARA collects a fee of $17.25 to search immigrant passenger arrival records, but only if the requester can name a specific ship list to be searched. SSA charges a fee of $27 for copies of original Social Security Number applications if the requester provides the Social Security Number, and $29 for copies of original Social Security Number applications if the requester does not provide the Social Security Number. SSA also offers electronic extracts of the same records for $16 and $18 respectively. In all such cases, when SSA provides these services, they apply to only one series of records (unlike a USCIS search and retrieval of multiple record series). Lower fees on the part of some organizations result from the fact that some or all of their indices and/or records are automated. Higher fees generally were charged for locating, retrieving and copying hard copy files. USCIS historical record series are comprised of hard copy C-Files, Visa Files, Registry Files, and A-Files numbered below 8 million and records therein dated before May 1, 1951. The National Archives fee to copy a similar textual file in its entirety is $37. Genealogy fees will be reviewed biennially and will likely be adjusted to more accurately reflect the actual cost as work is performed under new processes and procedures of the Genealogy Program. Furthermore, the initial start-up cost must be recovered over the first 2 years of the program. After 2 years, the fee review will reflect retirement of that debt and be adjusted accordingly. E. Record Copy Fee Where the Copy Is Illegible If requesters receive an illegible copy of a record, the Genealogy Program would charge the requester the same record copy fee. The costs involved in locating, retrieving, reproducing, and reviewing an historical record remain the same regardless of the quality of the copy. Some historical records exist on deteriorating microfilm, and those images have faded over time. The Genealogy Program would make every effort to produce the best possible reproduction of all microfilm records. Accordingly, the program would provide researchers with a record printed directly from the film rather than a copy of a print, or a scanned copy of a print. Prints taken directly from the old microfilm are generally the best quality copy available. In many cases, researchers will find they can improve the legibility of microfilm prints themselves using a photocopy machine's darker or lighter settings. The Genealogy Program also will have the benefit in sharing with enhanced technology as it is implemented in the USCIS Records program. F. Fee Waivers Due to the small amount of the fees, the normally discretionary nature of these requests, and the general authority of section 286(t) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(t), to recover full costs, DHS has determined that fee waivers will not be granted in this program. Part V—Regulatory Requirements A. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( *i.e.* , small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects professional genealogists and other members of the public requesting historical records from USCIS. As discussed below, the main source of genealogy requests is from individuals doing personal research, rather than from small entities, such as professional genealogists. Genealogy was described as a $200 million per year industry by The Wall Street Journal, ranging from individual researchers to multimillion-dollar companies; in addition, the growth of the Internet has spurred interest and a rapidly growing number of hobbyists pursuing genealogy. According to the “Occupational Outlook Quarterly,” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fall 2000), a 1997 survey of certified genealogists found that 57 percent work part-time, 34 percent work full-time, and 9 percent are hobbyists. In 2001 there were over 300 certified genealogists and currently, the Association of Professional Genealogists has a membership of 1,500 ( *http://www.apgen.org/publications/press/1500.htm* ). As the National Genealogical Society notes, “Aside from librarians, archivists, and publishers, most professional genealogists have other sources of income and may `moonlight' as genealogists until they become established. Those who make a living purely from client research in genealogy probably number no more than a few dozen.” ( *http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/eduprofessional.htm* ) With the growth of the Internet in recent years, the number of individuals and hobbyists has grown at a much faster rate. In fact, *http://www.myfamily.com* , one of the larger online information sources for genealogy, announced in 2004 a paid subscriber base of more then 1.5 million members. Much of the growth in genealogy as a sector arises from providing individuals the means of conducting their own family history research through online databases and research tools. The growing dominance of individual hobbyists suggests that individuals rather than professionals are the primary requesters of historical records. Professional genealogists tend to be hired when individuals hit a “brick wall,” or a particular problem that they cannot resolve. This suggests that professional researchers tend to focus on aspects of genealogy research other than the standard index searches or record requests that would be submitted to USCIS's Genealogy Program. Over the past 4 years, USCIS has received an average of 10,000 combined index search and/or records requests for historical records per year. Each request for an index search, record search, or both an index and record search was counted as one request to make up the 10,000. Based on an estimated increase in the demand for historical information, and the fact that the Genealogy Program will treat index search requests and records requests as separate rather than combined requests, DHS expects total requests to reflect a significantly higher number than when the FOIA Program handled genealogical requests. DHS estimates that it will receive 15,250 index search requests, 6,619 requests for microfilm records, and 4,728 requests for textual records for a combined total of 26,597 requests, totaling a cost ranging from $468,832 to $1,232,895 under the proposed fee structure. DHS has determined that requests for historical records are being made by individuals and has not found any evidence that professional genealogists submit FOIA requests to USCIS for their clients. If professional genealogists and researchers have submitted such requests, they are not identifying themselves as a commercial requester and thus cannot be segregated in the data. Genealogists typically advise clients on how to submit their own requests. Reasons for this practice include the time required for a response to the request and the belief that records are more releasable to a relative rather than an unrelated third party. Based on discussions with professional genealogists, requests generated by professional genealogists and researchers who fall under the approved definition from the Small Business Association of a small entity in this category, All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services with annual average receipt of $6 million or less, are well below 5 percent of the total number of requests. If it is assumed that professional genealogists and researchers account for 5 percent of the requests, and these costs are borne exclusively by the 1,500 members of the Association of Professional Genealogists, the average impact would be $28.49 per year. The average impact would be even lower still once the universe of professional genealogists is expanded to include entities who are not members of the Association of Professional Genealogists. These practices arise from the nature of the genealogy sector. Professional genealogists charge anywhere from $10 to $100 per hour, with an average of $30 to $60 per hour, according to the Association of Professional Genealogists ( *http://www.apgen.org/articles/hire.html* ). Expenses, such as record requests and copies, often are charged to the client as an additional expense. Specialists typically charge a relatively higher fee ( *http://www.progenealogists.com/compare.htm* ). In addition, many professionals require a retainer of $300 to $500. See Sue P. Morgan, “What You Should Know before Hiring a Professional Genealogist,” available at * http://www.genservices.com/docs/HiringAPro.htm* . Depending on the depth of the research, the fees for a genealogical study can be substantial. At a retainer of $300, the proposed fee range of $16 to $45 for an index search by the Genealogical Program is only 5.3 to 15 percent of the retainer, and it is typically paid directly by the client, not the researcher. This does not suggest a substantial burden on researchers. Given the low number of professional genealogists and researchers that would be impacted by this rule, the resulting degree of economic impact would not require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to be performed. Consequently, DHS certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely effect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996. This proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. In the previous four fiscal years, USCIS received an average of 10,000 combined search and record requests that fell under the definition of genealogy. To do a search and provide a record for each of these requests, USCIS would generate between $468,832 to $1,232,895 in offsetting revenue. These requests are currently handled through the USCIS FOIA/PA program at no recoverable cost to USCIS. Private vendors also do genealogical research and there are various historical documents maintained by private companies. The Genealogy Program will have no impact on these companies since we are only offering the same legacy INS documents as we provided previously at no charge. D. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), requires a determination whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to review by OMB and subject to the requirements of the Executive Order. USCIS has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Accordingly, it has been submitted to OMB for review and approval. USCIS assessed both the costs and benefits of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866, section 1(b)(6), and has determined that the benefits of this regulation justify its costs. The anticipated benefits of this proposed rule include:
(1)Relieve the FOIA/PA program from burdensome requests that require no FOIA/PA expertise;
(2)place requesters and the Genealogy staff in direct communication;
(3)provide a dedicated queue and point of contact for genealogists and other researchers seeking access to those records described as historical records;
(4)generate sufficient revenue to cover expenses as a fee for service program and,
(5)reduce the time to respond to these requests. The cost to the public of this proposed rule ranges from a $16 to $45 fee for index search requests, $16 to $45 fee for requests for a copy of a file on microfilm, or $26 to $55 fee for requests for a copy of a textual file. USCIS is authorized to charge a fee to recover the full costs of providing research and information services under section 286(t) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(t). Other sources exist for many types of genealogical research and it is not evident that every search by a genealogist would require access to the Genealogy Program at USCIS. Based upon these proposed fees, it is possible to approximate the impact of fees on individual and professional genealogists and researchers. USCIS expects to receive in the future approximately 15,250 genealogical
(name)index search requests per year, which, at $16 to $45 per search, would yield $240,000 to $675,000; in addition, there would be a total of 6,619 requests for microfilmed records and 4,728 requests for textual records ( *i.e.* , hard copy files). A fee range of $16 to $45 for microfilmed records would yield $105,904 to $297,855. A fee range of $26 to $55 to pull textual records would yield $122,928 to $260,040. Therefore, the total fees collected by the Genealogy Program would yield $468,832 to $1,232,895. Establishing the new Genealogy Program will benefit both individuals and researchers making genealogy requests for historical records as well those seeking information under the current FOIA/PA program by allowing a more timely response for both sets of requests. USCIS estimates that it processed an average of 10,000 combined index search and record requests for genealogical information over the past 4 fiscal years through the existing FOIA/PA program. These can be released without redaction or withholding, eliminating the need for FOIA/PA analysis. A new program specifically designed to handle these requests would expedite the process and improve services to historical researchers, genealogists and the general public. For example, the proposed rule does not increase information collection requirements of the rule. In fact, the introduction of e-filing presents an opportunity to simplify the information collection process and expedite handling. At the same time, the resources of the FOIA/PA program could be applied more efficiently to requests more directly related to immigration, citizenship, or naturalization benefits that require more detailed FOIA/PA analysis. E. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 requires DHS to develop a process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” Such policies are defined in the Executive Order to include rules 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.” USCIS analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in the Executive Order and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, USCIS has determined that this proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It provides for alternate document handling procedures that do not implicate state government. F. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. That Executive Order requires agencies to conduct reviews, before proposing legislation or promulgating regulations, to determine the impact of those proposals on civil justice and potential issues for litigation. The Executive Order requires that agencies make reasonable efforts to ensure the regulation clearly identifies preemptive effects, effects on existing Federal laws and regulations, identifies any retroactive effects of the proposal, and other matters. DHS has determined that this proposed regulation meets the requirements of Executive Order 12988 because it does not involve retroactive effects, preemptive effects, or other matters addressed in the Order. G. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule requires the submission of Form G-1041 or Form G-1041A when requesting a search or record from the USCIS. The Forms G-1041 and G-1041A are considered an information collection. Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until June 19, 2006. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Director, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd floor, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add Form Number G-1041 or G-1041A (whichever is appropriate) in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(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 the agencies 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, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* New information Collection.
(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Genealogy Search Request and Genealogy Record Request.
(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form G-1041, and G-1041A, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: Individuals and households. Form G-1041 is provided as a convenient means for persons to provide data necessary to perform a search of historical agency indices. Form G-1041A provides a convenient means for persons to identify a particular record desired under the Genealogy Program. Forms G-1041 and G-1041A will be used by researchers, historians, and social scientists seeking ancestry information for genealogical, family history and heir location purposes. The forms may also be used by United States citizens seeking historical records to support a foreign application for dual citizenship.
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 16,000 responses (Form G-1041, 10,000 responses, and Form G-1041A, 6,000 responses) at 30 minutes (.50) per response.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 8,000 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/pra/index.htm.* If additional information is required, contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529,
(202)272-8377. List of Subjects 8 CFR Part 103 Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Freedom of information, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 8 CFR Part 299 Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES; AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552(a); 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* ), E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2. 2. Section 103.7 is amended by: • Adding the entries “G-1041” and “G-1041A”, in proper alpha/numeric sequence, in paragraph (b)(1); and by • Revising the next to last sentence in Paragraph (c)(1). The additions and revisions read as follows: § 103.7 Fees.
(b)* * *
(1)* * * Form G-1041. For filing requests for searches of indices to historical records to be used in genealogical research. There is a fee of $16 to $45 for each index search request. Form G-1041A. For filing requests for copies of historical records to be used in genealogical research. There is a fee of $16 to $45 for each file copy from microfilm requested and a fee of $26 to $55 for each textual file copy requested.
(c)* * *
(1)* * * The fees for Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Services, and for Forms G-1041 and G-104A, Genealogy Program request forms, may not be waived. 3. Section 103.38 is added to read as follows: § 103.38 Genealogy program.
(a)*Purpose.* The Department of Homeland Security,
(DHS)U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Genealogy Program is a fee-for-service program designed to provide genealogical and historical records and reference services to genealogists, historians, and others seeking documents maintained within the historical record systems.
(b)*Scope and limitations.* Sections 103.38 through 103.41 comprise the regulations of the Genealogy Program. The regulations apply only to searches of and records maintained within those record series determined by the Genealogy Program Office
(GPO)to be historical records as described in 8 CFR 103.39. The regulations set forth the procedures by which individuals may request searches for historical records and, if responsive records are located, obtain copies of those records. 4. Section 103.39 is added to read as follows: § 103.39 Historical records. Historical Records are files, forms, and documents now located within the following records series:
(a)*Naturalization Certificate Files (C-Files), from September 27, 1906 to April 1, 1956.* Copies of records relating to all U.S. naturalizations in Federal, state, county, or municipal courts, overseas military naturalizations, replacement of old law naturalization certificates, and the issuance of Certificates of Citizenship in derivative, repatriation, and resumption cases. The majority of C-Files exist only on microfilm. Standard C-Files generally contain at least one application form (Declaration of Intention and/or Petition for Naturalization, or other application) and a duplicate certificate of naturalization or certificate of citizenship. Many files contain additional documents, including correspondence, affidavits, or other records. Only C-Files dating from 1929 onward include photographs.
(b)*Microfilmed Alien Registration Forms, from August 1, 1940 to March 31, 1944.* Microfilmed copies of 5.5 million Alien Registration Forms (Form AR-2) completed by all aliens age 14 and older, resident in or entering the United States between the dates given. The two-page form called for the following information: Name; name at arrival; other names used; street address; post-office address; date of birth; place of birth; citizenship; sex; marital status; race; height; weight; hair and eye color; date, place, vessel, and class of admission of last arrival in United States; date of first arrival in United States; number of years in United States; usual occupation; present occupation; name, address, and business of present employer; membership in clubs, organizations, or societies; dates and nature of military or naval service; whether citizenship papers filed, and if so date, place, and court for declaration or petition; number of relatives living in the United States; arrest record, including date, place, and disposition of each arrest; whether or not affiliated with a foreign government; signature, and fingerprint.
(c)*Visa Files, from July 1, 1924 to March 31, 1944.* Original arrival records of immigrants admitted for permanent residence under provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924. Visa forms contain all information normally found on a ship passenger list of the period, as well as the immigrant's places of residence for 5 years prior to emigration, names of both the immigrant's parents, and other data. Attached to the visa in most cases are birth records or affidavits. Also attached may be marriage, military, or police records.
(d)*Registry Files, from March 2, 1929 to March 31, 1944.* Original records documenting the creation of immigrant arrival records for persons who entered the United States prior to July 1, 1924, and for whom no arrival record could later be found. Most files also include documents supporting the immigrant's claims regarding arrival and residence ( *i.e.* , proofs of residence, receipts, employment records).
(e)*A-Files numbered below 8 million (A8000000), and documents therein dated prior to May 1, 1951.* Individual alien case files (A-files) became the official file for all immigration records created or consolidated since April 1, 1944. A-numbers ranging up to approximately 6 million were issued to aliens and immigrants within or entering the United States between 1940 and 1945. The 6 million and 7 million series of A-numbers were issued between circa 1944 and May 1, 1951. Any documents dated after May 1, 1951, though found in an A-File numbered below 8 million, will remain subject to FOIA/PA restrictions. 5. Section 103.40 is added to read as follows: § 103.40 Genealogical research requests.
(a)*Nature of requests.* Genealogy research requests are requests for searches and/or copies of historical records relating to a deceased person, usually for genealogy and family history research purposes.
(b)*Manner of requesting genealogical searches and records.* Requests must be submitted on Form G-1041, Genealogy Search Request, or Form G-1041A, Genealogy Record Request, and mailed to the address listed on the form. Requests may also be submitted via the Internet at a genealogy Web site to be developed for this purpose. A separate request on Form G-1041 must be submitted for each individual searched, and that form will call for the name, aliases, and all alternate spellings relating to the one individual immigrant. Form G-1041A may be submitted to request one or more separate records relating to separate individuals.
(c)*Information required to perform index search.* As required on Form G-1041, all requests for index searches to identify records of individual immigrants must include the immigrant's full name (including variant spellings of the name and/or aliases, if any), date of birth, and place of birth. The date of birth must be at least as specific as a year, and the place of birth must be at least as specific as a country (preferably the country name as it existed at the time of the immigrant's immigration or naturalization). Additional information about the immigrant's date of arrival in the United States, residence at time of naturalization, name of spouse and names of children may be required to ensure a successful search.
(d)*Information required to retrieve records.* As required on Form G-1041A, requests for copies of historical records or files must identify the record by number or other specific data used by the Genealogy Program Office to retrieve the record. C-Files must be identified by naturalization certificate number. Forms AR-2 and A-Files numbered below 8 million must be identified by Alien Registration Number. Visa Files must be identified by the Visa File Number. Registry Files must be identified by Registry File Number (for example, R-12345).
(e)*Information required for release of records* . Subjects will be presumed deceased if their birth date is more than 100 years prior to the date of the request. In other cases, the subject is presumed to be living until the requestor establishes to the satisfaction of the Genealogy Program Office that the subject is deceased. As required on Form G-1041A, primary or secondary documentary evidence of the subject's death will be required (including but not limited to death records, published obituaries or eulogies, published death notices, church or bible records, photographs of gravestones, and/or copies of official documents relating to payment of death benefits). All documentary evidence must be attached to Form G-1041A or submitted in accordance with instructions provided on Form G-1041A.
(f)*Processing of index search requests* . Each request for index search services will generate a search of the indices to determine the existence of responsive historical records. If no record is found, the researcher will be notified. If records are indicated, the researcher will be provided with search results including the type of record found and the file number or other information identifying the record that is required to support a request for record copies.
(g)*Processing of record copy requests* . Upon receipt of requests identifying specific records by number or other identifying information, the requested record(s) will be retrieved, duplicated, reviewed, and mailed to the requester. If a document is located and found but is not subject to release, the document(s) will be transferred to the FOIA/PA program for treatment as a FOIA/PA request as described in 8 CFR 103.10. Document retrieval charges will apply in all cases where documents are retrieved. 6. Section 103.41 is added to read as follows: § 103.41 Genealogy request fees.
(a)*Genealogy search fee* . A fee of $16 to $45 will be charged for filing each search request. The fee is not refundable.
(b)*Genealogy records fees* . For the retrieval, duplication, review, and release of each historical record, a fee of $16 to $45 for records on microfilm or a fee of $26 to $55 for textual records will be charged. The Genealogy Program Office will refund this fee only when the record request is based upon file information previously provided by the Genealogy Program Office in response to an index search request, and the Genealogy Program Office is unable to locate the file when later requested under a Genealogy Record request.
(c)*Manner of submission* . All fees must be submitted in the exact amount with Form G-1041 or Form G-1041A, remitted in accordance with 8 CFR 103.7(a)(1). PART 299—IMMIGRATION FORMS 7. The authority citation for part 299 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103; 8 CFR part 2. 8. Section 299.1 is amended in the table by adding Form “G-1041” and Form “G-1041A”, in proper alpha/numeric sequence, to read as follows: § 299.1 Prescribed forms. Form No. Edition date Title * * * * * * * G-1041 Genealogy Search Request. G-1041A Genealogy Records Request. * * * * * * * 9. Section 299.5 is amended in the table by adding Form “G-1041” and Form “G-1041A”, in proper alpha/numeric sequence, to read as follows: § 299.5 Display of control numbers. Form No. Form title Currently assigned OMB control No. * * * * * * * G-1041 Genealogy Search Request 1615-XXXX G-1041A Genealogy Records Request 1615-XXXX * * * * * * * Dated: April 13, 2006. Michael Chertoff, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-5947 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE242; Notice No. 23-06-02-SC] Special Conditions: Approved Model List Installation of AmSafe Inflatable Restraints in Normal and Utility Category Non-23.562 Certified Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Proposed special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the installation of an AmSafe, Inc., Inflatable Two-, Three-, Four or Five-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device on various airplane models. These airplanes, as modified by AmSafe, Inc., will have novel and unusual design features associated with the lap belt or shoulder harness portion of the safety belt, which contains an integrated airbag device. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE242, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: CE242. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark James, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4137, fax 816-329-4090, e-mail *mark.james@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The proposals described in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to CE242.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On August 19, 2005, AmSafe, Inc., Aviation Inflatable Restraints
(AAIR)Division, 1043 North 47th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85043, applied for a supplemental type certificate for the installation of an inflatable restraint in various airplane models certificated before the dynamic structural requirements as specified in 14 CFR part 23, section 23.562 took effect. The inflatable restraint system is either a two-, three-, four, or five-point safety belt restraint system consisting of a shoulder harness and a lap belt with an inflatable airbag attached to either the lap belt or the shoulder harness. The inflatable portion of the restraint system will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. The inflatable restraint system will be made available on the pilot, co-pilot, and passenger seats of these airplanes. In the event of an emergency landing, the airbag will inflate and provide a protective cushion between the occupant's head and structure within the airplane. This will reduce the potential for head and torso injury. The inflatable restraint behaves in a manner that is similar to an automotive airbag, but in this case, the airbag is integrated into the lap or shoulder belt. While airbags and inflatable restraints are standard in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable restraint system is novel for general aviation operations. The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of providing the same current level of safety of the airplanes original certification basis. The FAA has two primary safety concerns with the installation of airbags or inflatable restraints: • That they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions; and • That they do not perform in a manner or at such times as to impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. The latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements. An unexpected deployment while conducting the takeoff or landing phases of flight may result in an unsafe condition. The unexpected deployment may either startle the pilot, or generate a force sufficient to cause a sudden movement of the control yoke. Either action could result in a loss of control of the airplane, the consequences of which are magnified due to the low operating altitudes during these phases of flight. The FAA has considered this when establishing these special conditions. The inflatable restraint system relies on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. These sensors could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of an inadvertent deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. AmSafe, Inc. must show that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight are not a hazard to the airplane or that an inadvertent deployment is extremely improbable. In addition, general aviation aircraft are susceptible to a large amount of cumulative wear and tear on a restraint system. It is likely that the potential for inadvertent deployment increases as a result of this cumulative damage. Therefore, the impact of wear and tear on inadvertent deployment must be considered. Due to the effects of this cumulative damage, a life limit must be established for the appropriate system components in the restraint system design. There are additional factors to be considered to minimize the chances of inadvertent deployment. General aviation airplanes are exposed to a unique operating environment, since the same airplane may be used by both experienced and student pilots. The effect of this environment on inadvertent deployment must be understood. Therefore, qualification testing of the firing hardware/software must consider the following: • The airplane vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane; and • The inertial loads that result from typical flight or ground maneuvers, including gusts and hard landings. Any tendency for the firing mechanism to activate as a result of these loads or acceleration levels is unacceptable. Other influences on inadvertent deployment include high intensity electromagnetic fields
(HIRF)and lightning. Since the sensors that trigger deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the effects of these threats. To comply with HIRF and lightning requirements, the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system, since its inadvertent deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane. Given the level of safety of the retrofitted airplane occupant restraints, the inflatable restraint system must show that it will offer an equivalent level of protection in the event of an emergency landing. In the event of a deployment, the restraint must still be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order approved belt and shoulder harnesses. There is no requirement for the inflatable portion of the restraint to offer protection during multiple impacts, where more than one impact would require protection. The inflatable restraint system must deploy and provide protection for each occupant during emergency landing conditions as specified in the original certification basis. The seats of the various airplane models were certificated prior to the dynamic structural requirements of section 23.562. Therefore, the emergency landing loads conditions identified in the original certification basis of the airplane must be used to satisfy this requirement. Compliance will be demonstrated using the test condition specified in the original certification basis. It must also be shown that the crash sensor will trigger when exposed to a rapidly applied deceleration, like an actual crash event. Therefore, the test crash pulses identified in section 23.562 must be used to satisfy this requirement, although, the peak “G” may be reduced to a level meeting the original certification requirements of the aircraft. Testing to these pulses will demonstrate that the crash sensor will trigger when exposed to a rapidly applied deceleration, like an actual crash event. It is possible a wide range of occupants will use the inflatable restraint. Thus, the protection offered by this restraint should be effective for occupants that range from the fifth percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male. In support of this operational capability, there must be a means to verify the integrity of this system before each flight. As an option, AmSafe, Inc. can establish inspection intervals where they have demonstrated the system to be reliable between these intervals. It is possible that an inflatable restraint will be “armed” even though no occupant is using the seat. While there will be means to verify the integrity of the system before flight, it is also prudent to require that unoccupied seats with active restraints not constitute a hazard to any occupant. This will protect any individual performing maintenance inside the cockpit while the aircraft is on the ground. The restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system. In addition, the design must prevent the inflatable seatbelt from being incorrectly buckled and/or installed such that the airbag would not properly deploy. As an alternative, AmSafe, Inc. may show that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will still provide the required protection. The cabins of the various modeal airplanes identified in these special conditions are confined areas, and the FAA is concerned that noxious gasses may accumulate in the event of airbag deployment. When deployment does occur, either by design or inadvertently, there must not be a release of hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cockpit. An inflatable restraint should not increase the risk already associated with fire. Therefore, the inflatable restraint should be protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of the inflator. The airbag is likely to have a large volume displacement, and possibly impede the egress of an occupant. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that the inflatable restraint would be deflated at the time an occupant would attempt egress. However, it is appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable restraint may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as reasonable time. This time limit will offer a level of protection throughout the impact event. Finally, there is an elevated risk associated with inadvertent deployment for agricultural airplanes, which are type certificated under the restricted category. This is due to the unique operating environment and low altitude flying of these airplanes. The FAA is still trying to understand the risk and benefit associated with the installation of these systems into restricted category airplanes in general and agricultural airplanes specifically. Therefore, the installation of the AAIR system is currently prohibited in agricultural airplanes type certificated under the restricted category. Special conditions for the installation of AAIR systems on other Non-23.562 certificated airplanes have been issued and no substantive public comments were received. Since the same special conditions were issued multiple times for different model airplanes with no substantive public comments, the FAA began issuing direct final special conditions with an invitation for public comment. This was done to eliminate the waiting period for public comments and AmSafe aviation could proceed with the project, since no comments were expected. These previous special conditions were issued for a single model airplane or for variants of a model from a single airplane manufacturer, and required dynamic testing of each AAIR system installation for showing compliance. The AML Supplemental Type Certificate sought by AmSafe Aviation has numerous airplane models and manufacturers. Since AmSafe Aviation has previously demonstrated by dynamic testing, and has the supporting data, that the Electronics Module Assembly
(EMA)and the inflator assembly will function as intended in a simulated dynamic emergency landing, it is not necessary to repeat the test for each airplane model shown in these special conditions. This is a departure from the method of showing compliance used in the prior special conditions. Testing is required to show compliance, but it is not necessary to repeat the testing for each airplane installation. Existing test data is adequate for showing compliance for other airplanes where the AAIR equipment is identical and the installation is nearly identical. Since this is a substantial change in the philosophy of showing compliance, it is prudent to give the public time to comment on the special conditions prior to moving forward with the project. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, section 21.101, AmSafe, Inc., must show that the affected airplane models, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in the Type Certificate Numbers listed below or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the original ”type certification basis” and can be found in the Type Certificate Numbers listed below. The following models are covered by this special condition: List of All Airplane Models and Applicable TCDS Make Model TC holder TCDS Certification basis Aerostar PA-60-600 (Aerostar 600), PA-60-601 (Aerostar 601), PA-60-601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar 602P). PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P). Aerostar Aircraft Corporation. A17WE Revision 22 14 CFR PART 23. ALL AMERICAN 10A All American Aircraft, Inc A-792 CAR 3. American Champion (Champion) 402 American Champion Aircraft Corp A3CE Revision 5 CAR 3. American Champion (Bellanca) (Champion) (Aeronca) 7AC, 7ACA, 7EC, 7GCB, S7AC, S7EC, 7GCBA (L-16A), 7BCM, 7ECA, 7GCBC (L-16B), 7CCM, 7FC, 7HC, S7CCM, 7GC, 7JC, 7DC, 7GCA, 7KC, S7DC, 7GCAA, 7KCAB American Champion Aircraft Corp A-759 Revision 67 CAR 4a. American Champion (Bellanca) (Trytek) (Aeronca) 11AC, S11AC, 11BC, S11BC American Champion Aircraft Corp A-761 Revision 17 CAR 4a. AMERICAN CHAMPION (Bellanca) (Trytek) (Aeronca) 11CC, S11CC American Champion Aircraft Corporation A-796 Revision 14 CAR 3. VARGA (Morrisey) 2150, 2150A, 2180 Augustair, Inc 4A19 Revision 9 CAR 3. Bellanca 14-13, 14-13-2, 14-13-3, 14-13-3W Bellanca Aircraft Corporation A-773 Revision 10 CAR 4a. Bellanca 14-9, 14-9L Bellanca Aircraft Corporation TC716 CAR 4a. Cessna 310, 310J, 310A(USAF U-3A), 310J-1, 310B, E310J, 310C, 310K, 310D, 310L, 310E(USAF U-3B), 310N, 310F, 310P, 310G, T310P, 310H, 310Q, E310H, T310Q, 310I, 310R, T310R Cessna Aircraft Company 3A10 Revision 62 CAR 3. Cessna 321 (Navy OE-2) Cessna Aircraft Company 3A11 Revision 6 CAR 3. Cessna 172, 172I, 172A, 172K, 172B, 172L, 172C, 172M, 172D, 172N, 172E, 172P, 172F (USAF T-41A), 172Q, 172G, 172H, (USAF T-41A) Cessna Aircraft Company 3A12 Revision 73 CAR 3. CESSNA 175, 175A, 175B, 175C, P172D, R172E (USAF T-41B) (USAF T-41C and D), R172F (USAF T-41D), R172G (USAF T-41C or D), R172H (USAF T-41D), R172J, R172K, 172RG Cessna Aircraft Company 3A17 Revision 45 CAR 3. Cessna 182, 182K, 182A, 182L, 182B, 182M, 182C, 182N, 182D, 182P, 182E, 182Q, 182F, 182R, 182G, R182, 182H, T182, 182J, TR182 Cessna Aircraft Company 3A13 Revision 64 CAR 3. Cessna 210, 210K, 210A, T210K, 210B, 210L, 210C, T210L, 210D, 210M, 210E, T210M, 210F, 210N, T210F, P210N, 210G, T210N, T210G, 210R, 210H, P210R, T210H, T210R, 210J, 210-5 (205), T210J, 210-5A
(205A)Cessna Aircraft Company 3A21 Revision 46 CAR 3. Cessna 185, A185E, 185A, A185F, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E Cessna Aircraft Company 3A24 Revision 37 CAR 3. Cessna 320, 320F, 320-1, 335, 320A, 340, 320B, 340A, 320C, 320D, 320E Cessna Aircraft Company 3A25 Revision 25 CAR 3. Cessna 140A Cessna Aircraft Company 5A2 Revision 21 CAR 3. Cessna 180, 180E, 180A, 180F, 180B, 180G, 180C, 180H, 180D, 180J, 180E, 180K Cessna Aircraft Company 5A6 Revision 66 CAR 3. Cessna 336 Cessna Aircraft Company A2CE Revision 7 CAR 3. Cessna 206, U206B, TP206D, P206, U206C, TP206E, P206A, U206D, TU206A, P206B, U206E, TU206B, P206C, U206F, TU206C, P206D, U206G, TU206D, P206E, TP206A, TU206E, U206, TP206B, TU206F, U206A, TP206C, TU206G Cessna Aircraft Company A4CE Revision 43 CAR 3. CESSNA 337A (USAF 02B), T337E, 337B, 337F, M337B (USAF 02A), T337F, T337B, 337G, 337C, T337G, T337C, 337H, 337D, P337H, T337D, T337H, T337H-SP Cessna Aircraft Company A6CE Revision 40 CAR 3/14 CFR PART 23. CESSNA 401, 411A, 401A, 414, 401B, 414A, 402, 421, 402A, 421A, 402B, 421B, 402C, 421C, 411, 425 Cessna Aircraft Company A7CE Revision 46 CAR 3. CESSNA 190 (LC-126A,B,C), 195, 195A, 195B Cessna Aircraft Company A-790 Revision 36 CAR 3. Cessna 170, 170A, 170B Cessna Aircraft Company A-799 Revision 54 CAR 3. CESSNA 150, 150J, 150A, 150K, 150B, A150K, 150C, 150L, 150D, A150L, 150E, 150M, 150F, A150M, 150G, 152, 150H, A152 Cessna Aircraft Company 3A19 Revision 44 CAR 3. CESSNA 177, 177A, 177B Cessna Aircraft Company A13CE Revision 24 14 CFR PART 23. CESSNA 404, 406 Cessna Aircraft Company A25CE Revision 11 14 CFR PART 23. Cessna 208, 208A, 208B Cessna Aircraft Company A37CE Revision 12 14 CFR PART 23. Cessna 441 Cessna Aircraft Company A28CE Revision 12 14 CFR PART 23. Cessna 120, 140 Cessna Aircraft Company A-768 Revision 34 CAR 4a. Commander Aircraft Model 112, Model 114, Model 112TC, Model 112B, Model 112TCA, Model 114A, Model 114B, Model 114TC Commander Aircraft Company A12SO Revision 21 14 CFR PART 23. Great Lakes 2T-1A, 2T-1A-1, 2T-1A-2 Great Lakes Aircraft Company, LLC A18EA Revision 10 Aeronautical Bulletin No. 7-A. Helio (Taylorcraft) 15A, 20 Helio Aircraft Corporation 3A3 Revision 7 CAR 4a. LEARJET 23 Learjet Inc. A5CE Revision 10 CAR 3. LOCKHEED 402-2 Lockheed Aircraft International 2A11 Revision 4 AR 3. LAND-AIR (TEMCO) (LUSCOMBE) 11A, 11E Luscombe Aircraft Corporation A-804 Revision 14 CAR 3. MAULE Bee Dee M-4, M-5-180C, MXT-7-160, M-4-180V, M-4 M-5-200, MX-7-180A, M-4C, M-5-210C, MXT-7-180A, M-4S, M-5-210TC, MX-7-180B, M-4T, M-5-220C, M-7-235B, M-4-180C, M-5-235C, M-7-235A, M-4-180S, M-6-180, M-7-235C, M-4-180T, M-6-235, MX-7-180C, M-4-210, M-7-235, M-7-260, M-4-210C, MX-7-235, MT-7-260, M-4-210S, MX-7-180, M-7-260C, M-4-210T, MX-7-420, M-7-420AC, M-4-220, MXT-7-180, MX-7-160C, M-4-220C, MT-7-235, MX-7-180AC, M-4-220S, M-8-235, M-7-420A, M-4-220T, MX-7-160, MT-7-420 MAULE AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY, INC 3A23 Revision 30 CAR 3. Mooney M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K (Up to S/N 25-2000), M20L Mooney Airplane Company, Inc 2A3 Revision 47 CAR 3. Interceptor (Aero Commander) (Meyers) 200, 200A, 200B, 200C, 200D, 400 Prop-Jets, Inc. 3A18 Revision 16 CAR 3. BEECH 35-33, J35, 35-A33, K35, 35-B33, M35, 35-C33, N35, 35-C33A, P35, E33, S35, E33A, V35, E33C, V35A, F33, V35B, F33A, 36, F33C, A36, G33, A36TC, H35, B36TC, G36 Raytheon Aircraft Company 3A15 Revision 90 CAR 3. BEECH 45 (YT-34), A45 (T-34A, B-45), D45 (T-34B) Raytheon Aircraft Company 5A3 Revision 25 CAR 03. BEECH 19A, B23, B19, C23, M19A, A24, 23, A24R, A23, B24R, A23A, C24R, A23-19, A23-24 Raytheon Aircraft Company A1CE Revision 34 CAR 3. BEECH 3N, E18S-9700,3NM, G18S, 3TM, H18, JRB-6, C-45G, TC-45G, D18C, C-45H, TC-45H, D18S, TC-45J or E18S, UC-45J (SNB-5) RC-45J (SNB-5P) Raytheon Aircraft Company A-765 Revision 74 CAR 03. BEECH 35, A35, E35, B35, F35, C35, G35, D35, 35R Raytheon Aircraft Company A-777 Revision 57 CAR 03. RAYTHEON 200, A100-1 (U-21J), 200C, A200 (C-12A), 200CT, A200 (C-12C), 200T, A200C (UC-12B), B200, A200CT (C-12D), B200C, A200CT (FWC-12D), B200CT, A200CT (C-12F), B200T, A200CT (RC-12D), 300, A200CT (RC-12G), 300LW, A200CT (RC-12H), B300, A200CT (RC-12K), B300C, A200CT (RC-12P), 1900, A200CT (RC-12Q), 1900C, B200C (C-12F), 1900D, B200C (UC-12M), B200C (C-12R), B200C (UC-12F), 1900C (C-12J) Raytheon Aircraft Company A24CE Revision 91 14 CFR PART 23. Beech B95A, D55, D95A, D55A, E95, E55, 95-55, E55A, 95-A55, 56TC, 95-B55, A56TC, 95-B55A, 58, 95-B55B (T-42A), 58A, 95-C55, 95, 95-C55A, B95, G58 Raytheon Aircraft Company 3A16 Revision 81 CAR 3. BEECH 60, A60, B60 Raytheon Aircraft Company A12CE Revision 23 14 CFR PART 23. BEECH 58P, 58PA, 58TC, 58TCA Raytheon Aircraft Company A23CE Revision 14 14 CFR PART 23. CESSNA CESSNA F172D, CESSNA F172E, CESSNA F172F, CESSNA F172G, CESSNA F172H, CESSNA F172K, CESSNA F172L, CESSNA F172M, CESSNA F172N, CESSNA F172P Reims Aviation S.A. A4EU Revision 11 CAR 10/ CAR 3. SOCATA TB 9, TB 10, TB 20, TB 21, TB 200 SOCATA—GROUPE AEROSPATIALE A51EU Revision 14 14 CFR PART 23. Pitts S-1S, S-1T, S-2, S-2A, S-2S, S-2B, S-2C Sky International Inc. (Aviat Aircraft, Inc.) A8SO Revision 21 14 CFR PART 23. Taylorcraft 19, F19, F21, F21A, F21B, F22, F22A, F22B, F22C Taylorcraft Aviation LLC 1A9 Revision 19 CAR 3. TAYLORCRAFT BC, BCS12-D, BCS, BC12-D1, BC-65, BCS12-D1, BCS-65, BC12D-85, BC12-65 (Army L-2H), BCS12D-85, BCS12-65, BC12D-4-85, BC12-D, BCS12D-4-85 Taylorcraft Aviation, LLC A-696 Revision 22 CAR 04. TAYLORCRAFT (Army L-2G) BF, BFS, BF-60, BFS-60, BF-65, BFS-65, (Army L-2K) BF 12-65, BFS-65 Taylorcraft, Inc. A-699 Revision 5 CAR 4a. LUSCOMBE 8, 8D, 8A, 8E, 8B, 8F, 8C, T-8F The Don Luscombe Aviation History Foundation, Inc A-694 Revision 23 CAR 4a. PIPER PA-28-140, PA-28-151, PA-28-150, PA-28-161, PA-28-160, PA-28-181, PA-28-180, PA-28R-201, PA-28-235, PA-28R-201T, PA-28S-160, PA-28-236, PA-28S-180, PA-28RT-201, PA-28R-180, PA-28RT-201T, PA-28R-200, PA-28-201T The New Piper Aircraft, Inc 2A13 Revision 47 CAR 3. PIPER PA-30, PA-39, PA-40 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A1EA Revision 16 CAR 3. PIPER PA-32-260, PA-32R-301 (SP), PA-32-300, PA-32R-301 (HP), PA-32S-300, PA-32R-301T, PA-32R-300, PA-32-301, PA-32RT-300, PA-32-301T, PA-32RT-300T, PA-32-301FT, PA-32-301XTC The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A3SO Revision 29 CAR 3. PIPER PA-34-200, PA-34-200T, PA-34-220T The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A7SO Revision 16 14 CFR PART 23. PIPER PA-31P, PA-31T, PA-31T1, PA-31T2, PA-31T3, PA-31P-350 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A8EA Revision 22 CAR 3. PIPER PA-36-285, PA-36-300, PA-36-375 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A9SO Revision 9 14 CFR PART 23. PIPER PA-36-285, PA-36-300, PA-36-375 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A10SO Revision 12 14 CFR PART 21/14 CFR PART 23. PIPER PA-38-112 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A18SO Revision 4 14 CFR PART 23. PIPER PA-44-180, PA-44-180T The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A19SO Revision 9 14 CFR PART 23. PIPER PA-31, PA-31-300, PA-31-325, PA-31-350 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A20SO Revision 10 CAR 3. PIPER PA-42, PA-42-720, PA-42-1000 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A23SO Revision 17 14 CFR PART 23. PIPER PA-46-310P, PA-46-350P, PA-46-500TP The New Piper Aircraft, Inc A25SO Revision 14 14 CFR PART 23. Tiger Aircraft LLC (American General) AA-1, AA-1A, AA-1B, AA-1C Tiger Aircraft LLC A11EA Revision 10 14 CFR PART 23. Tiger Aircraft AA-5, AA-5A, AA-5B, AG-5B Tiger Aircraft LLC A16EA Revision 13 14 CFR PART 23. Twin Commander 500, 500-A, 500-B, 500-U, 520, 560, 560-A, 560-E, 500-S Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation 6A1 Revision 45 CAR 3. Twin Commander 560-F, 681, 680, 690, 680E, 685, 680F, 690A, 720, 690B, 680FL, 690C, 680FL(P), 690D, 680T, 695, 680V, 695A, 680W, 695B Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation 2A4 Revision 46 CAR 3. Univair (Stinson) 108, 108-1, 108-2, 108-3, 108-5 Univair Aircraft Corporation A-767 Revision 27 CAR 3. Univair
(ERCO)415-D,
(ERCO)E,
(ERCO)G, (Forney) F-1, (Forney) F-1A,
(Alon)A-2,
(Alon)A2-A, (Mooney) M10 Univair Aircraft Corporation A-787 Revision 33 CAR 3. Univair (Mooney)
(ERCO)415-C,
(ERCO)415-CD Univair Aircraft Corporation A-718 Revision 29 CAR 4a. For all the models listed above, the certification basis also includes all exemptions, if any; equivalent level of safety findings, if any; and special conditions not relevant to the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. The Administrator has determined that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( *i.e.,* CAR 3. or part 23 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint as installed on these models because of a novel or unusual design feature. Therefore, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of section 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in section 11.19, are issued in accordance with section 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with section 21.101.Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to that model under the provisions of section 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The various airplane models will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: The AmSafe, Inc., Inflatable Two-, Three-, Four-, or Five-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an Integrated Airbag Device. The purpose of the airbag is to reduce the potential for injury in the event of an accident. In a severe impact, an airbag will deploy from the restraint, in a manner similar to an automotive airbag. The airbag will deploy between the head of the occupant and airplane interior structure. This will, therefore, provide some protection to the head of the occupant. The restraint will rely on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment. The Code of Federal Regulations state performance criteria for seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning inflatable restraints. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in addition to the requirements of part 21 and part 23, special conditions are needed to address the installation of this inflatable restraint. Accordingly, these special conditions are adopted for the various airplane models equipped with the AmSafe, Inc., two-, three-, four, or five-point inflatable restraint. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the previously identified airplane models. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Proposed Special Conditions The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on the basis of not lowering the current level of safety of the occupant restraint system for the airplane models listed in these proposed Special Conditions. Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for these models, as modified by AmSafe, Incorporated. Inflatable Two-, Three-, Four-, or Five-Point Restraint Safety Belt With an Integrated Airbag Device Installed in an Airplane Model. 1a. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will provide restraint protection under the emergency landing conditions specified in the original certification basis of the airplane. Compliance will be demonstrated using the static test conditions specified in the original certification basis for each airplane. 1b. It must be shown that the crash sensor will trigger when exposed to a rapidly applied deceleration, like an actual emergency landing event. Therefore, compliance may be demonstrated using the deceleration pulse specified in paragraph 23.562, which may be modified as follows: I. The peak longitudinal deceleration may be reduced, however the onset rate of the deceleration must be equal to or greater than the emergency landing pulse identified in paragraph 23.562. II. The peak longitudinal deceleration must be above the deployment threshold of the sensor, and equal or greater than the forward static design longitudinal load factor required by the original certification basis of the airplane. 2. The inflatable restraint must provide adequate protection for each occupant. In addition, unoccupied seats that have an active restraint must not constitute a hazard to any occupant. 3. The design must prevent the inflatable restraint from being incorrectly buckled and/or incorrectly installed such that the airbag would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required protection. 4. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or the inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings) that are likely to be experienced in service. 5. It must be extremely improbable for an inadvertent deployment of the restraint system to occur, or an inadvertent deployment must not impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or cause an unsafe condition (or hazard to the airplane). In addition, a deployed inflatable restraint must be at least as strong as a Technical Standard Order (C22g or C114) restraint. 6. It must be shown that deployment of the inflatable restraint system is not hazardous to the occupant or result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include occupants whose restraint is loosely fastened. 7. It must be shown that an inadvertent deployment that could cause injury to a sitting person is improbable. In addition, the restraint must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system. 8. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will not impede rapid egress of the occupants 10 seconds after its deployment. 9. For the purposes of complying with HIRF and lightning requirements, the inflatable restraint system is considered a critical system since its deployment could have a hazardous effect on the airplane. 10. It must be shown that the inflatable restraints will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin. 11. The inflatable restraint system installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result. 12. There must be a means to verify the integrity of the inflatable restraint activation system before each flight or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. 13. A life limit must be established for appropriate system components. 14. Qualification testing of the internal firing mechanism must be performed at vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation airplane. 15. The installation of the AmSafe Aviation Inflatable Restraint
(AAIR)system is prohibited in agricultural airplanes type certificated under the Restricted Category. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April 6, 2006. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-5907 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23872; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-9] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Offshore Airspace Area 1485L; and Revision of Control 1485H; Barrow, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Control 1485L and revise Control 1485H offshore airspace in the vicinity of Barrow, AK. These proposed actions would establish controlled airspace outside of 12 nautical miles
(NM)of the U.S. shoreline upward from 1,200 feet mean sea level
(MSL)along the North Slope of Alaska. Additionally, this proposal would revise the altitudes of Control 1485H from FL 230/FL 450 to FL 180/FL 600. The FAA is proposing these actions to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing instrument flight rules
(IFR)operations at the airfields along the North Slope of Alaska in anticipation of establishing Terminal Arrival Areas associated with Area Navigation
(RNAV)Standard Instrument Arrival Procedures (SIAPs). DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2005-23872 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-09, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:
(202)267-8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-23872 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-09) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-23872 and Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-09.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Availability of NPRM's An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at *http://www.faa.gov* , or the **Federal Register's** Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html* . You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,
(202)267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure. The Proposal The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Control 1485L Offshore Airspace Area, AK, extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL along the North Slope of Alaska. This proposed action would provide controlled airspace beyond 12NM from the shoreline of the United States in those areas where there will soon be a requirement to provide IFR enroute Air Traffic Control services and within which the United States is applying domestic procedures. The purpose of this proposal is to establish controlled airspace of sufficient size to support the Terminal Arrival Area associated with new IFR operations at Atqasuk Airport, AK. Future plans for Barrow, AK are also taken into consideration for this action. The FAA Instrument Flight Procedures Production and Maintenance Branch have revised four SIAPs for the Atqasuk Airport, which will require controlled airspace outside the 12NM. Controlled airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface in international airspace would be created by this action. Additionally, this proposal lowers the floor of Control 1485H from Fl 230 to FL 180 to fill the gap between low and high control areas and raises the ceiling from FL 245 to FL 600. The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation:
(1)Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2)is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation
(DOT)Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and
(3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. ICAO Considerations As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO)International Standards and Recommended Practices. The application of International Standards and Recommended Practices by the FAA, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Airspace & Rules, in areas outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions. The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of undetermined sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in its domestic jurisdiction. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention. Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the Administrator is consulting with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 10854. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air). The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389. § 71.1 [Amended] 2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9N, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated September 1, 2005, and effective September 15, 2005, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas. Control 1485L [New] That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet MSL within the area bounded by a line beginning at a point 12 miles offshore at lat. 68°00′00″ N.; to lat. 68°00′00″ N., long. 168°58′23″ W.; to lat. 72°00′00″ N., long. 158°00′00″ W.; to lat. 72°00′00″ N., long. 144°00′11″ W.; to lat. 75°00′00″ N., long. 141°00′00″ W.; to a point 12 miles offshore at long. 141°00′00″ W.; thence westward by a line 12 miles from and parallel to the shoreline to the point of beginning. Paragraph 2003 Offshore Airspace Areas. Control 1485H [Revised] That airspace extending upward from 18,000 feet to FL 600 within the area bounded by a line beginning at a point 12 miles offshore at lat. 68°00′00″ N.; to lat. 68°00′00″ N., long. 168°58′23″ W.; to lat. 72°00′00″ N., long. 158°00′00″ W.; to lat. 72°00′00″ N., long. 144°00′11″ W.; to lat. 75°00′00″ N., long. 141°00′00″ W.; to a point 12 miles offshore at long. 141°00′00″ W.; thence westward by a line 12 miles from and parallel to the shoreline to the point of beginning. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2006. Ellen Crum, Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules. [FR Doc. E6-5908 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-143244-05] RIN 1545-BE93 Guidance Under Section 7874 for Determining Ownership by Former Shareholders or Partners of Domestic Entities; Hearing Cancellation AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the disregard of affiliate-owned stock in determining the percentage of stock of a foreign corporation held by former shareholders or partners of a domestic entity, in order to determine whether the foreign corporation is a surrogate foreign corporation under section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code. DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for April 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin R. Jones of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at
(202)622-7180 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the **Federal Register** on December 28, 2005 (70 FR 76732) announced that a public hearing was scheduled for April 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these regulations expired on April 6, 2006. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Friday, April 14, 2006, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for April 27, 2006, is cancelled. Guy R. Traynor, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-5923 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-06-019] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Townsend Gut, Booth Bay and Southport, ME AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulation governing the operation of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge, across Townsend Gut, at mile 0.7, between Boothbay Harbor and Southport, Maine. This proposed rule would change the regulation to require the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to operate on a fixed opening schedule between April 29 and September 30, each year. This rule is expected to help relieve vehicular traffic delays during the summertime tourism season while continuing to meet both the current and anticipated needs of navigation. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, One South Street, Battery Park Building, New York, New York, 10004, or deliver them to the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District,
(617)223-8364. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-019), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting; however, you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Southport
(SR27)Bridge, across Townsend Gut, at mile 0.7, has a vertical clearance of 10 feet at mean high water, and 19 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.5, requires the bridge to open on signal at all times. The owner of the bridge, Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT), requested a change to the drawbridge operation regulations governing the operation of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to require it to open on signal, on the hour, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., from April 29 through September 30, each year. The purpose of the proposed change to the regulation is to help reduce vehicular traffic delays during the summer tourism season when vehicular traffic is greatly increased. Frequent bridge openings during the summer months result in vehicular traffic delays during the daytime hours when traffic between Boothbay Harbor and Southport is at its heaviest. The Southport
(SR27)Bridge opened 4,136 times in 2004. Specifically, 3,493 (84%) of the 2004 bridge openings were between May and September. The Town of Southport Selectmen recently conducted a public meeting to survey public opinion regarding the proposed regulation change reflected in this notice of proposed rulemaking. The local residents, mariners, and commercial vessel operators who attended the meeting were strongly in favor of permanently changing the regulation governing the operation of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to require the bridge to open on signal, once an hour, on the hour, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., from April 29 through September 30, each year. All the remaining provisions of the existing regulation would remain unchanged. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule change would require the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to open on signal, on the hour, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., from April 29 through September 30. This proposed change is expected to help improve traffic congestion in Boothbay Harbor and Southport during the peak tourist season while still providing for the current and anticipated needs of navigation. During the summer of 2005, the Coast Guard temporarily changed the operating schedule for the Southport
(SR27)Bridge to help facilitate bridge sandblasting and painting operations. Under the temporary regulation (70 FR 12805), published on March 16, 2005, the Southport
(SR27)Bridge opened every two hours between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. from May through September. This temporary rule was in effect through November 30, 2005. Vehicular traffic delays were greatly reduced during the time period the temporary regulation was in effect, which was an added benefit, since the main purpose of the temporary rule was to facilitate bridge painting. In addition to the openings every two hours under the temporary rule the mariners had the option of utilizing the alternate route to open water through Sheepscot Bay. No complaints were received from the mariners during the time the temporary regulation was in effect. As a result, the Coast Guard believes that having bridge openings once an hour, on the hour, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., from April 29 through September 30, should help alleviate the vehicular traffic problems in Boothbay Harbor and Southport during the summer months while continuing to meet the current and anticipated needs of navigation. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that vessel traffic which can't pass under the Southport
(SR27)Bridge in the closed position will still be provided bridge openings every hour as well as being able to utilize the alternate route to open water through Sheepscot Bay. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based on the fact that vessel traffic which can't pass under the Southport
(SR27)Bridge in the closed position will still be provided bridge openings every hour as well as being able to utilize the alternate route to open water through Sheepscot Bay. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact, Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, One South Street, New York, NY 10004. The telephone number is
(212)668-7165. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environment documentation because this action relates to the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Checklist” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Section 117.537 is added to read as follows: § 117.537 Townsend Gut. The draw of the Southport
(SR27)Bridge, at mile 16.8, across Townsend Gut between Booth Bay and Southport, shall open on signal; except that, from April 29 through September 30, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., the draw shall open on signal once an hour, on the hour only, after an opening request is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. Dated: April 10, 2006. David P. Pekoske, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-5909 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [Docket No. 060404093-6093-01; I.D. 032406D] RIN 0648-AU37 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fishery Resources AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations implementing Amendment 21 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
(BSAI)King and Tanner crabs (FMP). This action proposes a change to the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program (Program). If approved, Amendment 21 and its implementing rule would modify the timing for harvesters and processors to match harvesting and processing shares and the timing for initiating arbitration proceedings incorporated in the Program to resolve price and other delivery disputes. This action is necessary to increase resource conservation and economic efficiency in the crab fisheries that are subject to the Program. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable law. DATES: Comments must be received no later than June 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Office. Comments may be submitted by: • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. • Hand Delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK. • Facsimile: 907-586-7557. • E-mail: *0648-AU37-PRKTC21@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line of the e-mail the following document identifier: Crab Rationalization RIN 0648-AU37. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes. • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments. Copies of Amendment 21 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for this action may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region at the address above or from the Alaska Region Web site at *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries.htm* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228 or *glenn.merrill@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199, section 801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP included the Program. A final rule implementing these amendments was published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). Regulations implementing Amendments 18 and 19 are located at 50 CFR part 680. Amendment 20 to the FMP, which would authorize the management of an Eastern and Western Tanner crab ( *C. bairdi* ), is currently under Secretarial review. A NOA for Amendment 20 was published in the **Federal Register** on February 27, 2006 (71 FR 9770). The comment period on the NOA ends on April 28, 2006. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 20 was published in the **Federal Register** on March 21, 2006 (71 FR 14153). The comment period on the proposed rule ends on May 5, 2006. Under the Program, NMFS issued harvester quota share
(QS)that yields annual individual fishing quota (IFQ). An IFQ is a permit to harvest a specific portion of the total allowable catch (TAC). A portion of the IFQ issued are “Class A” IFQ. Crab harvested under a Class A IFQ permit must be delivered to a specific processor. NMFS issued processor quota share
(PQS)to processors that yield individual processing quota (IPQ). IPQ is a permit to receive and process a portion of the TAC harvested with Class A IFQ. A one-to-one relationship exists between Class A IFQ and IPQ. The Program includes an arbitration system to resolve price, delivery terms, and other disputes in the event that holders of Class A IFQ and IPQ are unable to negotiate those terms. After the annual issuance of IFQ and IPQ, the arbitration system regulations at § 680.20(h)(3)(iv)(A) allow harvesters who are not affiliated with a processor through ownership or control linkages (unaffiliated harvesters) to unilaterally commit delivery of harvests from Class A IFQ to a processor with available IPQ. Once committed, the unaffiliated harvester is permitted to initiate a binding arbitration proceeding under § 680.20(h)(3)(v) if the parties are unable to agree to the terms of delivery. Regulations at § 680.20(h)(3)(v) require that an IFQ holder initiate binding arbitration at least 15 days prior to a season opening. This approach is commonly called the “share match” approach to binding arbitration. Alternatively, regulations at § 680.20(h)(3)(iii) allow unaffiliated harvesters to match IFQ with processors with available IPQ using a “lengthy season approach.” Although the lengthy season approach allows harvesters and processors to use the arbitration system, it requires a mutual agreement of both partes to schedule arbitration proceedings later in the season, which can affect negotiating positions. The arbitration system under the Program was intended to provide harvesters and processors with the ability to reach price agreements through binding arbitration using two methods: one that results in a binding arbitration decision prior to the season, the share match approach; and the other that would allow a binding arbitration proceeding to begin under a mutually agreed upon negotiation timeline, the lengthy season approach. Under NMFS' current schedule for stock assessments and TAC setting, the share match approach to resolve price disputes has not met the needs of IFQ holders. NMFS typically does not issue IFQ and IPQ 15 days prior to a season opening, limiting the ability of IFQ holders to rely on the share match approach to achieve a price resolution. If approved, Amendment 21 to the FMP and its implementing rule would link the timing for initiating share matching and a binding arbitration proceeding to the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, providing participants with a reasonable and reliable opportunity to fully use the arbitration system. The timing for share matching and initiation of binding arbitration would be based on the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, including a five-day assessment period for negotiated commitments. For a period of five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, unaffiliated harvesters holding Class A IFQ and holders of IPQ could voluntarily agree to commit their respective shares. After the five-day assessment period, holders of uncommitted Class A IFQ could unilaterally commit that IFQ to any holder of uncommitted IPQ. During the 10-day period beginning five days after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ, any holder of committed Class A IFQ could unilaterally initiate a binding arbitration proceeding with the IPQ holder to which the IFQ were committed. This proposed rule would not change existing requirements that the parties to the arbitration would meet with a contract arbitrator to schedule the submission of information to the arbitrator and the terms and timing for submission of last best offers. Amendment 21 would implement an action that is consistent with the original intent of the arbitration system, with the necessary modifications to accommodate the existing stock assessment and TAC announcement processes. Each year, the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) establishes a TAC for BSAI crab through a collaborative process with NMFS. This process is outlined in the FMP. ADF&G considers the most recent and best available scientific data when determining the TAC for a fishery. In most cases, crab stock survey data become available for analysis between mid-August and mid-September. Following the availability of the data becoming available, NMFS and ADF&G analysts perform stock assessment analyses and estimation of stock abundance as needed for determination of stock status relative to overfishing and TACs. For most BSAI crab fisheries, ADF&G has determined that announcement of TACs will occur on October 1. The TAC announcement timing is intended to allow ADF&G and NMFS to conduct a thorough review of the data prior to the TAC determinations by ADF&G, and for NMFS to issue IFQs and IPQs prior to the October 15 th season opening. Accelerating the timing of the TAC announcement could compromise the integrity of the results, introduce additional errors, and limit the ability of ADF&G and NMFS to use the most recent and best available data. Once ADF&G announces the TAC, NMFS must issue IFQ to harvesters based upon their holdings of QS, and IPQ to processors based upon their holdings of PQS. This process requires several days after TAC is issued. NMFS believes that delaying the start of the season to accommodate the stock assessment process and IFQ and IPQ issuance process is not a viable option. Under the FMP, the State of Alaska has the authority to establish season dates. Modifying season dates would require action by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The Council and NMFS are not proposing a change in season dates. Delaying the season dates could reduce access to valuable markets and is not supported by the BSAI crab fishing industry. Modifications proposed under Amendment 21 were discussed and reviewed during a Program workshop in Seattle held on November 18, 2005, (70 FR 10174, November 2, 2005). Industry representatives from both the harvesting and processing sector attended the meeting in roughly equal proportion. Based upon public comments NMFS received during that meeting, the approach described under Amendment 21 was favored by industry representatives from both the harvesting and processing sector over alternative approaches (e.g., delaying the season start date). Particularly favored was a brief assessment period once IFQ and IPQ have been issued before unaffiliated harvesters could unilaterally match their IFQ to IPQ holders. Several industry attendees from the processing sector noted that once IFQ and IPQ have been issued, harvesters and processors require time to assess their holdings and complete any voluntary matching agreements. In December 2005, NMFS briefed the Council detailing the timing conflict and industry comments received during the November 2005 public meeting. The Council considered additional public comments and proposed limiting the alternatives for consideration to those that resolve the timing conflict in a manner that closely matches the timing of the share match approach to binding arbitration prescribed in the FMP. Amendment 21 as adopted by the Council incorporates this approach. This proposed rule would not alter the basic structure or management of the Program. It would not alter reporting, monitoring, fee collection, and other requirements to participate in the arbitration system. The proposed rule also would not increase the number of harvesters or processors in the Program fisheries or the current amount of crab that may be harvested. The proposed action would not affect current regional delivery requirements or other restrictions on harvesting and processing. Amendment 21 would provide a mechanism to ensure that a binding arbitration proceeding could occur early in the fishing season in accordance with the original design of the Program. Amendment 21 would not modify the lengthy season approach to binding arbitration proceeding, and would fulfill the intent of the FMP to provide harvesters and processors with effective methods of resolving price disputes under the arbitration system. Classification At this time, NMFS has not determined that Amendment 21 and the provisions in this rule that would implement Amendment 21 are consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making the determination that this proposed rule is consistent, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period (see DATES ). A Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR)was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The RIR considers all quantitative and qualitative measures. Additionally, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA)was prepared that describes the impact this proposed rule would have on small entities. Copies of the RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule incorporates by reference an extensive RIR/IRFA prepared for Amendments 18 and 19 that detailed the impacts of the Program on small entities. The IRFA for this proposed action describes in detail the reasons why this action is being proposed, describes the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule, and discusses both small and non-small regulated entities to adequately characterize the fishery participants. The IRFA contains a description and estimate of the number of directly affected small entities. Estimates of the number of small harvesting entities under the Program are complicated by several factors. First, each eligible captain will receive an allocation of QS under the program. A total of 186 captains received allocations of QS for the 2005-2006 fishery. In addition, 269 allocations of QS to license limitation permit
(LLP)license holders were made under the Program, for a total of 454 QS allocations. Because some persons participated as LLP license holders and captains and others received allocations from the activities of multiple vessels, only 294 unique persons received QS. Of those entities receiving QS, 287 are small entities because they either generated $4.0 million or less in gross revenue, or they are independent entities not affiliated with a processor. Estimates of gross revenues for purposes of determining the number of small entities, relied on the low estimates of prices from the arbitration reports based on the 2005/2006 fishing season. Allocations of PQS under the Program were made to 29 processors. Of these PQS recipients, nine are estimated to be large entities, and 20 are estimated to be small entities. Estimates of large entities were made based on available records of employment and the analysts' knowledge of foreign ownership of processing companies. These totals exclude catcher/processors, which are included in the LLP license holder discussion. Other supporting businesses also may be indirectly affected by this action if it leads to fewer vessels participating in the fishery. These impacts are treated in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES ). Implementation of the proposed rule would not change the overall reporting structure and recordkeeping requirements of the participants in the BSAI crab fisheries or arbitration system. No Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed action have been identified. The Council considered alternatives as it designed and evaluated the potential methods for accommodating current fishery management timing and the need to provide an opportunity for a binding arbitration proceeding early during a crab fishing season in the EA prepared for this proposed action. The alternatives differed only in the timing of when unaffiliated harvesters with IFQ could match their shares with processors with uncommitted IPQ. The alternatives have no effect on fishing practices or patterns and therefore have no effects on the physical and biological environment. Effects of the Program, including the arbitration system and the timing of binding arbitration proceedings, on the physical and biological environment (including effects on benthic species and habitat, essential fish habitat, the ecosystem, endangered species, marine mammals, and sea birds) are fully analyzed in the EIS prepared for the Program (Crab EIS) and are incorporated by reference in the EA prepared for this proposed action. This proposed action is not anticipated to have additional impacts on the BSAI crab fisheries beyond those identified in the Crab EIS. No new significant information is available that would change these determinations in the Crab EIS. Please refer to the Crab EIS and its appendices for more detail (see ADDRESSES ). The EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this action analyzed three alternatives. Alternative 1 would maintain the existing timing for initiating a binding arbitration proceeding. This would maintain the inconsistency between the timing of the issuance of IFQ and IPQ in a crab QS fishery and the requirement to initiate a binding arbitration prior to the start of the season. Alternative 1 would not provide an opportunity for harvesters to initiate a binding arbitration proceeding early in the season. Alternative 1 does not effectively implement a portion of the Program as recommended by the Council. In effect, the reliability of the arbitration system to resolve price disputes earlier in the season is limited. Although participants have relied on the “lengthy season approach” to effectively extend the deadline for initiating an arbitration proceeding to resolve a dispute concerning terms of delivery, the greater degree of cooperation required by the approach limits its reliability. In addition, the lengthy season approach could delay resolution of disputes beyond the period that would be expected, if the process for initiating arbitration could be applied as expected. The result could be either a loss of operational certainty arising from unsettled terms of delivery and potentially a shift in negotiating leverage if one party were disproportionately affected by the uncertainty. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would provide harvesters with the opportunity to utilize the arbitration system to resolve disputes in a manner consistent with the original intent of Program. Although Alternative 2 likely would not provide a price resolution through arbitration prior to the start of the season as originally envisioned, it would provide an opportunity to resolve price disputes shortly after the start of the season. Alternative 2 would not have effects on harvesters or processors different from those already considered under the EIS prepared for the Program. The five-day assessment period would be likely to contribute to stability in relationships among IFQ holders and IPQ holders, by permitting persons to resolve negotiated commitments prior to allowing unilateral commitments. In addition, this 5-day period could result in more negotiated commitments by prioritizing negotiated relationships over unilateral commitments. Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 but does not provide a five-day assessment period to match shares after the issuance of IFQ and IPQ. The absence of such a period could provide an advantage to persons who are unable, or unwilling, to develop voluntary commitments. The absence of this period to allow IFQ and IPQ holders to finalize negotiated commitments also could be disruptive to markets by flooding IPQ holders with unilateral commitments from IFQ holders who fear being displaced by others. An orderly settlement of commitments is more likely to take place if a period of negotiated commitments were permitted prior to allowing unilateral commitments. Although the different alternatives under consideration in this action would have distributional and efficiency impacts for individual participants, in no case are these impacts in the aggregate expected to be substantial. Although none of the alternatives has substantial negative impacts on small entities, preferred Alternative 2 minimizes the potential negative impacts that could arise under Alternative 3. Differences in efficiency that could arise are likely to affect most participants in a minor way having an overall insubstantial impact. As a consequence, none of the alternatives is expected to have any significant economic or socioeconomic impacts. Collection-of-information This rule does not contain new collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680 Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: April 14, 2006. James W. Balsiger, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862. 2. In § 680.20, paragraphs (h)(3)(iv)(A) and (h)(3)(v) introductory text are revised to read as follows: § 680.20 Arbitration System.
(h)* * *
(3)* * *
(iv)* * *
(A)At any time 5 days after NMFS issues IFQ and IPQ for that crab QS fishery in that crab fishing year, holders of uncommitted Arbitration IFQ may choose to commit the delivery of harvests of crab to be made with that uncommitted Arbitration IFQ to an uncommitted IPQ holder.
(v)*Initiation of Binding Arbitration.* If an Arbitration IFQ holder intends to initiate Binding Arbitration, the Arbitration IFQ holder must initiate the Binding Arbitration procedure not later than 15 days after NMFS issues IFQ and IPQ for that crab QS fishery in that crab fishing year. Binding Arbitration is initiated after the committed Arbitration IFQ holder notifies a committed IPQ holder and selects a Contract Arbitrator. Binding Arbitration may be initiated to resolve price, terms of delivery, and other disputes. There will be only one Binding Arbitration Proceeding for an IPQ holder but multiple Arbitration IFQ holders may participate in this proceeding. This limitation on the timing of Binding Arbitration proceedings does not include proceedings that arise due to: [FR Doc. E6-5945 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 76 Thursday, April 20, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0048] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Tuberculosis AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an 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 an extension of approval of an information collection associated with the domestic tuberculosis eradication program. 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-2006-0048 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-2006-0048, 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-2006-0048. *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 regarding the domestic tuberculosis eradication program, contact Dr. Michael Dutcher, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Ruminant Health Programs, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-5467. 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:* Tuberculosis. *OMB Number:* 0579-0146. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is responsible for, among other things, preventing the interstate spread of pests and diseases of livestock within the United States and for conducting eradication programs. In connection with this mission, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) participates in the Cooperative State-Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program, which is a national program to eliminate bovine tuberculosis from the United States. This program is conducted under various States' authorities supplemented by Federal authorities regulating interstate movement of affected animals. The tuberculosis regulations, contained in 9 CFR part 77, provide several levels of tuberculosis risk classifications to be applied to States and zones within States, and classify States and zones according to their tuberculosis risk. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of cattle, bison, and captive cervids from the various classes of States or zones to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. These regulations contain information collection requirements, including requirements for epidemiological reviews, certificates for animals moved interstate, tuberculosis management plans, submission by States of requests to APHIS for State or zone status, and submission by States of an annual report to APHIS for renewal of State or zone status. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning this information collection. We need this outside input to 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 information collection, 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 information collection 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 0.30 hours per response. *Respondents:* State animal health authorities, including State veterinarians and designated State tuberculosis epidemiologists. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 200. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 10. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 2,000. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 600 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 14th day of April 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-5942 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0003] Horse Protection; Public Meetings in California, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of public meetings. SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Animal Care program will host four additional meetings to present current information on the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act
(HPA)and provide a forum for horse industry members and other interested persons to comment on the Horse Protection Program, development of the HPA Operating Plan for 2007 and beyond, and other Horse Protection matters. This notice provides the meetings' agendas, locations, and dates. DATES: The meetings will be held in Dallas, TX, on April 19, 2006, at 1 p.m.; in Somerset, KY, on May 17, 2006, at 1 p.m.; in Pomona, CA, on June 12, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., and in Chattanooga, TN, on September 11, 2006, at 1 p.m. Registration for each meeting will start 30 minutes before the meeting. ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the following locations: Dallas, TX: Sterling Hotel Dallas, 1055 Regal Row, Dallas, TX. Somerset, KY: Center for Rural Development, 2292 South Highway 27, Suite 300, Somerset, KY. Pomona, CA: Kellogg West Conference Center, 3801 West Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA. Chattanooga, TN: Miller & Martin PLLC, Volunteer Building, 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Chattanooga, TN. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Darby G. Holladay, APHIS Legislative and Public Affairs, 4700 River Road Unit 51, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-3265. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care, is announcing four additional meetings to discuss the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act (HPA). Two prior meetings for this purpose have been held in Shelbyville, KY, on February 8, 2006, and in Springfield, MO, on March 13, 2006. Notice of the earlier meetings was published in the **Federal Register** on January 18, 2006 (71 FR 2902), and on March 7, 2006 (71 FR 11373). These meetings are designed to provide a forum for information dissemination on current initiatives by Animal Care. Further, these meetings provide the opportunity for industry members and other interested parties to provide suggestions for the HPA Operating Plan for 2007 and beyond and comments on other Horse Protection Program matters during the listening session period on the agenda. Each attendee who wishes to comment should indicate at registration his or her intention to address the Deputy Administrator during the listening session and will be allotted a set amount of time. The meetings will, with the exception of possible minor modifications, follow the agenda below. Registration for each meeting will start 30 minutes prior to the meeting. *Welcome and Overview:* 15 minutes. *Horse Protection Program Update:* 1 hour, 45 minutes. *Listening Session:* 1 hour, 45 minutes. *Remarks and Closing:* 15 minutes. Meeting notices, copies of the Horse Protection Act, HPA regulations, the HPA Operating Plan for 2004-2006, and other relevant documents are available on the Animal Care Web site at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/hpainfo.html.* Please note that these meetings are being held to provide for the exchange of information on the enforcement of the Horse Protection Act and are not an opportunity to submit formal comments on proposed rules or other regulatory initiatives. Written comments will be accepted and should be mailed to: USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737. Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2006 . Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-5943 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Eastern Arizona Counties Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Eastern Arizona Counties Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Payson, Arizona. The purpose of the meeting is to review and approve projects for funding. DATES: The meeting will be held May 19, 2006, at 12:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Gila Community College Payson Campus, 201 Mud Springs Road, Payson, Arizona. Send written comments to Robert Dyson, Eastern Arizona Counties Resource Advisory Committee, c/o Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 640, Springerville, Arizona 85938 or electronically to *rydson@fs.fed.us.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Dyson, Public Affairs Officer, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests,
(928)333-4301. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Pub. L. 106-393 related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before the meeting. Opportunity for public input will be provided. Dated: April 13, 2006. Deryl D. Jevons, Acting Forest Supervisor, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. [FR Doc. 06-3774 Filed 4-19-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 32
Traces to 32 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Definitions§ 601
- Purposes§ 3501
- Cotton classification services§ 473a
- Congressional declaration of purpose; use of existing facilities; cooperation with States§ 1621
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Least burdensome option or explanation required§ 1535
- Disposition of moneys collected under the provisions of this subchapter§ 1356
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Departmental regulations§ 301
- Definitions§ 1101
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- SHORT TITLE.§ 1
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Regulations for drawbridges§ 499
- North Pacific fisheries conservation§ 1862
CFR
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Special conditions.§ 21.16
- What public comment procedures does the FAA follow for Special Conditions?§ 11.38
- Applicability.§ 71.1
- When the drawbridge must open.§ 117.5
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
45 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 28
- 5 CFR 1320
- Pub. L. 102-237
- 7 USC 471-476
- 7 CFR 58
- 69 CFR 8797
- 7 USC 1621-1627
- 7 CFR 1290
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 7 CFR 3015
- Pub. L. 96-534
- Pub. L. 108-465
- 7 CFR 3016
- 5 USC 1501-1508
- 8 CFR 103.40(a)
- 8 CFR 103.39
- 541 U.S. 157
- 6 CFR 5
- 8 CFR 103.10(c)
- 8 CFR 103.10(d)(3)
- 349 F.3d 657
- 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)
- 8 CFR 103
- 8 CFR 299
- Pub. L. 107-296
- 116 Stat. 2135
- 8 CFR 2
- 8 CFR 103.10
- 8 CFR 103.7(a)(1)
- 14 CFR 23
- 14 CFR 21
- 14 CFR 71
- 26 CFR 1
- 33 CFR 117
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 102-587
+ 5 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
SCOTUS541 U.S. 157
F. App'x349 F.3d 657
Cite7 CFR 28
Cites 77 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources