Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-05-16 · Department of the Navy, DOD · Notices

Notices. Notice of open meeting

23,595 words·~107 min read·/register/2006/05/16/06-4510·

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

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel will meet to discuss issues of interest to the National Ocean Research Leadership Council (NORLC) and the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration (ICOSRMI) activities. All sessions of the meeting will remain open to the public.
DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, June 5, 2006, from 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., and Tuesday, June 6, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. In order to maintain the meeting time schedule, members of the public will be limited in their time to speak to the Panel. Members of the public should submit their comments one week in advance of the meeting to the meeting Point of Contact. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, 1201 New York Ave, NW., Suite 420, Washington, DC 20005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Melbourne G. Briscoe, Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone 703-696-4120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss issues of interest to the NORLC and ICOSRMI. The meeting will include discussions on bridging the gap between science and decisionmaking, the national water quality monitoring network, and other current issues in the ocean science and resource management communities.
Dated: May 9, 2006. Eric McDonald, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-7396 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection Submitted for OMB Review and Comment AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and request for OMB review and comment. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy
(DOE)has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Office of Science reports annually in the President's Budget Request the numbers of researchers, post docs, graduate students and technicians supported through Research Grants and Field Work Proposals (FWPs). However, these data are based on forecasts by the principal investigator (i.e., PIs) at the time the grants and FWPs were initially funded. These estimates are unreliable because they are based on the best guess of the PIs at the time of funding. While the PI's initial estimate could be accurate at the time of the request, the reliability of the initial estimate decreases as the project matures. Further, the forecasts by the PIs are subjective. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify the inaccuracies with any confidence. To better plan for future investments, the Office of Science must better understand the actual impact of its budget on the technical manpower supported. A short (approximately 17 minutes) web-based survey has been developed to collect actual workforce data from a small sample of researchers currently supported by the Office of Science. The result will be compared to proposal data to estimate the average and range of variation and to derive a statistically valid methodology for approximating budgetary impacts on the technical manpower supported. DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before June 15, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-3087. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. (Comments should also be addressed to Jeffrey Martus, Records Management Division IM-11/Germantown Bldg., Office of Business and Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, and to Christine A. Chalk, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christine A. Chalk. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This package contains:
(1)OMB No. “New”;
(2)Package Title: DOE 2005 Technical Manpower Online Survey
(3)Type of Review: New;
(4)Purpose: {enter a brief description of the need for the information and its proposed use};
(5)Respondents: 366;
(6)Estimated Number of Burden Hours: Approximately 17 minutes per respondent times 366 respondents is 103.7 hours. *Statutory Authority:* Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, as amended) Sec. 209 defines the duty and the responsibilities of the Director of Office of Science to include: Advising the Secretary with respect to education and training activities required for effective short and long-term basic and applied research activities of the Department; and Advising the Secretary with respect to grants and other forms of financial assistance required for effective short and long-term basic and applied research activities of the Department. Jeffrey Martus, Records Management Division, Office of Business and Information Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer (IM-11). [FR Doc. E6-7413 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-313-000] Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 8, 2006. Take notice that on April 21, 2006, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) tendered for filing as a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective June 20, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7377 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-345-000] ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 5, 2006, ANR Pipeline Company
(ANR)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 118, with an effective date of June 5, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7378 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-348-000] ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 5, 2006, ANR Pipeline Company
(ANR)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 108, with an effective date of June 5, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7381 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP96-200-152] CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 4, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company
(CEGT)tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 820, to be effective April 1, 2006. CEGT states that the purpose of this filing is to remove a reference to a negotiated rate transaction which has been permanently released. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7371 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP98-151-004] Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Petition To Amend May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 3, 2006, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25314, filed in Docket No. CP98-151-004, an amendment to its pending petition to amend filed on August 1, 2005, in Docket No. CP98-151-003, pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to amend the facilities previously approved for abandonment by conveyance to Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Millennium) and the lease of capacity to Millennium. Specifically, Columbia states that it will now retain ownership of Lines U, K, 1278, 1842 and will lease to Millennium capacity in the facilities. In addition, Columbia states that it will retain ownership in the Milford Compressor Station and Port Jervis Measuring Station, all as more fully set forth in the petition which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This petition is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Any questions regarding this petition should be directed to counsel for Columbia, Fredric J. George, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, P.O. Box 1273, Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273; at
(304)357-2359 (phone) or
(304)357-3206 (fax). There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project, or in support of or in opposition to this project, should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* May 30, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7372 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP05-422-013] El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing May 9, 2006. Take notice that on April 28, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1A, Third Substitute Original sheet No. 28B, with an effective date of June 1, 2006. Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7376 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP98-150-008] Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Petition To Amend May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 3, 2006, Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C., (Millennium), One Blue Hill Plaza, 7th Floor, P.O. Box 1565, Pearl River, New York 10965, filed in Docket No. CP98-150-008, a second amendment to its pending application filed on August 1, 2005, in Docket No. CP98-150-006, pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), to reflect:
(1)The conversion of Millennium Pipeline Company, L.P. to Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C;
(2)Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation's (Columbia) Line 1278 north of Milford, Line K and the Milford Compressor Station which Millennium initially proposed to acquire and operate, will instead be retained by Columbia, and under which Millennium will lease capacity on the retained facilities;
(3)the relocation of the Wagoner M&R station from Milford, Pennsylvania to Deer Park, New York;
(4)certain minor route changes and modifications with respect to the location of pipe, contractor and staging yards; and
(5)to include the latest amended versions of the precedent agreements, a new precedent agreement with Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, and certain formation documents. In addition, Millennium requests that the Commission vacate the portions of the certificated project that are not located on the proposed route from Greenwood, New York to the point in Clarkstown, New York referred to as Buena Vista, all as more fully set forth in the petition which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This petition to amend is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll free at
(866)208-3676, or for TTY, contact
(202)502-8659. Any initial questions regarding this petition should be directed to counsel for Millennium, Daniel F. Collins or Glenn S. Benson, Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., at 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004; or
(202)662-4586 (Daniel) or
(202)662-4589 (Glenn), or by fax at
(202)662-4643. There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding. However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest. Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project, or in support of or in opposition to this project, should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. *Comment Date:* May 30, 2006. Magalie Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7384 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-350-000] Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff and Filing of Non-Conforming Service Agreement May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 5, 2006, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 372, to become effective June 5, 2006. Northwest also tendered for filing a Rate Schedule TF-1 non-conforming service agreement. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7383 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL05-148-000; ER05-1410-000] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Initiation of Proceeding and Refund Effective Date May 9, 2006. On April 20, 2006, the Commission issued an order that initiated a proceeding in Docket Nos. EL05-148-000 and ER05-1410-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPS), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2005), concerning the justness and reasonableness of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s reliability pricing model proposal (RPM). *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.* , 115 FERC ¶ 61,079 (2006). The refund effective date in Docket Nos. EL05-148-000 and ER05-1410-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7373 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-346-000] Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 3, 2006, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (Puget) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective June 3, 2006: Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1 Original Sheet Nos. 122 through 126 Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7379 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-349-000] Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Fuel Sharing Refund Report May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 5, 2006, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing a refund report showing refunds that were made to Southern's customers regarding fuel over-recovery pursuant to Section 35 (Fuel Sharing Mechanism) of the General Terms and Conditions of Southern's tariff for the period March 1, 2005-February 28, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible online at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time May 16, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7382 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RP06-347-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 4, 2006, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 272 to be effective as of June 4, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7380 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL06-69-000] ALLETE, Inc.; Complainant v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Respondent; Notice of Complaint May 9, 2006. Take notice that on May 8, 2006, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, ALLETE, Inc. (d/b/a Minnesota Power) filed a complaint against Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) alleging that Midwest ISO has erred in assessing excessive congestion charges against Minnesota Power. The Complainant states that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Midwest ISO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 29, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7374 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. AC06-96-000, et al.] Electric Rate and Corporate Filings May 9, 2006. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 1. Florida Power Corporation [Docket No. AC06-96-000] On May 5, 2006, Florida Power Corporation filed a request for authority to reduce the wholesale annual nuclear decommissioning accrual for its Crystal River Unit #3 beginning January 2006 through December 2009, in the above referenced docket. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 23, 2006. 2. Rumford Falls Hydro LLC [Docket No. EG06-46-000] Take notice that on April 17, 2006 Rumford Falls Hydro LLC filed its notice of self-certification of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to sections 366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's regulations and section 1266 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 15, 2006. 3. MMC Escondido LLC [Docket No. EG06-48-000] Take notice that on April 19, 2006 MMC Escondido LLC filed its notice of self-certification of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to sections 366.1 and 366.7 of the Commission's regulations and section 1266 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 15, 2006. 4. WGL Holdings, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-47-000] Take notice that on May 3, 2006 WGL Holdings, Inc. filed a notice for exemption from the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(a) and 366.4(b)(1). *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 24, 2006. 5. Legg Mason, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-48-000] Take notice that on May 5, 2006 Legg Mason, Inc. filed a notice for exemption from the requirements of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(b)(1) and 366.4(b)(1). *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 26, 2006. 6. ALLETE, Inc. [Docket No. PH06-49-000] Take notice that on May 5, 2006 ALLETE, Inc. filed a notice of petition for waiver of the Commission's regulations, pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3(c) and 366.4(c)(1), stating it is a single-state holding company system. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 26, 2006. Standard Paragraph Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* , or call
(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7370 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments May 9, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* A Subsequent License. (Minor Project). b. *Project No.:* 946-007. c. *Date Filed:* April 28, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Hyrum City. e. *Name of Project:* Hyrum City Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the Blacksmith Fork River in Hyrum City, Cache County, Utah. The project affects about 17.03 acres of Federal lands within the Wasatch Cache National Forest. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* Dean Howard, Mayor, Hyrum City, 83 West Main Street, Hyrum, Utah 84319;
(435)245-6033, or Ken Tuttle or Mike Wilcox, Sunrise Engineering, Inc., 25 East 500 North, Fillmore, UT 84631;
(435)743-6151. i. *FERC Contact:* Gaylord Hoisington,
(202)502-6032 or *gaylord.hoisington@FERC.gov* . j. *Cooperating Agencies:* We are asking Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. *See* 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001). k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant. l. *Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status:* June 27, 2006. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “e-Filing” link. m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. n. The existing Hyrum City's Hydropower Project was initially constructed in 1930-1931, after receiving an original license on November 27, 1929. The project has been licensed since that time with one amendment in 1977, and one renewal in 1981. The current license expires on April 30, 2008. The run-of-river, base-load plant operates on 85-cubic-foot-per-second of water diverted by a diversion dam located in Blacksmith Fork Canyon. The 3,419-foot-by-passed reach is not de-watered because the flows in the river exceeds the capacity of the plant, and during low flows, Hyrum City operates the plant at less than maximum flow to maintain a continuous flow throughout the river channel for aesthetic enjoyment in the city park that adjoins the powerhouse. The project includes the following constructed facilities:
(1)A 15-foot-high, 70-foot-long earth-fill concrete core embankment to the north, a 14-foot-high, 65-foot-long concrete spillway section, a 15-foot-high, 125-foot-long earth-fill concrete core embankment to the north which makes the total length of the dam approximately 260-foot-long;
(2)a 16-foot-high, 8-foot-wide concrete intake structure with a 20-foot-high, 8-foot-wide trash rack and fish ladder;
(3)a 60-inch-diameter concrete penstock inlet with head gate;
(4)a 3,470-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter concrete penstock going into a 130-foot-long, 42-inch-diameter steel penstock;
(5)a 37-acre-foot de-silting pond;
(6)a 26-foot-wide, 39-foot-long, 20-foot-high brick powerhouse;
(7)a 400-kilowatt Leffel horizontal shaft scroll case turbine;
(8)a 100-foot, 2.4-kV underground transmission line; and
(9)appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation of the project is approximately 3,083,000 kilowatt-hours and there are no proposed changes to the facilities or the current mode of operation at this time. o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. p. *Procedural schedule and final amendments:* The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. Issue Deficiency letter—June 2006. Issue Acceptance letter—July 2006. Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments—September 2006. Request Additional Information—November 2006. Issue Scoping Document 2—January 2007. Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis—February 2007. Notice of the availability of the environmental analysis—April 2007. Ready for Commission's decision on the application—June 2007. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7375 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394; FRL-8170-5] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs; EPA ICR No. 1569.06, OMB Control No. 2040-0153 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *OW-Docket@epa.gov.* • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Water Docket—Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: Office of Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Waye, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds, Mail Code 4503-T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)566-1170; fax number:
(202)566-1333; e-mail address: *waye.don@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments? EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0394, which is available for online viewing at *www.regulations.gov,* or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426. Use *www.regulations.gov* to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document. What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in? Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii)Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES . 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? *Affected entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are 16 coastal States and 1 Territory with conditionally approved Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. *Title:* Approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs *ICR numbers:* EPA ICR No. 1569-06, OMB Control No. 2040-0153. *ICR status:* This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the **Federal Register** or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. *Abstract:* Under the provisions of national Program Development and Approval Guidance implementing section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) which was jointly developed and published by EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 29 coastal States and 5 coastal Territories with federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs have developed and submitted to EPA and NOAA Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Programs. EPA and NOAA have approved 12 States and 4 Territories, and conditionally approved 17 States and 1 Territory. The conditional approvals will require States and Territories to submit additional information in order to obtain final program approval. CZARA section 6217 requires States and Territories to obtain final approval of their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Programs in order to retain their full share of funding available to them under section 319 of the Clean Water Act and section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 148 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: *Estimated total number of potential respondents:* 17 States and 1 Territory. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:* Four. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 2664 hours. *Estimated total annual costs:* $93,240. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? There is a decrease of 586 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is the result of EPA and NOAA having fully approved 16 of the 34 programs. What Is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another **Federal Register** notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Dated: May 10, 2006. Diane C. Regas, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. [FR Doc. E6-7407 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OAR-2004-0386; FRL-8170-4] RIN NA2060 Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for Regulation AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of revisions to the list of product categories scheduled for regulation under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). SUMMARY: This notice modifies the section 183(e) list and schedule for regulation by adding one category and removing one category of consumer and commercial products. By this action, EPA is listing portable fuel containers
(PFCs)for regulation and removing petroleum dry cleaning solvents from the list of product categories for regulation. DATES: This action is effective on May 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0386 (legacy docket No. A-94-65). All documents in the docket are listed on the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the HQ Docket Center for public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket is located at: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20460, or by calling
(202)566-1744 or 1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bruce Moore, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number
(919)541-5460, facsimile number
(919)541-3470, electronic mail address: *moore.bruce@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *World Wide Web (WWW)* . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the action will be posted on the TTN policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg* . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. *Outline.* The information presented in this notice is organized as follows: I. What is the CAA section 183(e) list? II. Why is EPA revising the list and schedule for regulation? III. What criteria were considered in EPA's decision to add PFC to the list and schedule for regulation? IV. What was the result of the ranking exercise for the PFC product category? V. Which category is EPA removing from the schedule for regulation? VI. What portion of the 1990 CAA section 183(e) baseline does the schedule for regulation address? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the CAA section 183(e) list? Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of smog, is formed in the atmosphere by reactions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC)and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. The formation of ground-level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many variables. Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and ecosystems. Acute health effects are induced by short-term exposures (observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)), generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion, and by prolonged exposures to ozone (observed at concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm), typically while individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Moderate exertion levels are more frequently experienced by individuals than heavy exertion levels. The acute health effects include respiratory symptoms, effects on exercise performance, increased airway responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and pulmonary inflammation. Groups at increased risk of experiencing such effects include active children, outdoor workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities, as well as those with preexisting respiratory disease. Currently available information also suggests that long-term exposures to ozone may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function). Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess their potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products. Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone ( *i.e.* , ozone nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be regulated into four groups. EPA published the original list of product categories and the original schedule that established the four groups of categories in the **Federal Register** on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). EPA noted in that notice that EPA may amend the list of products for regulation, and the groups of product categories, in order to achieve an effective regulatory program in accordance with the Agency's discretion under CAA section 183(e). EPA published a revised schedule and grouping on March 18, 1999 (64 FR 13422). EPA again revised the list to regroup the product categories for purposes of workload management on November 17, 2005 (70 FR 69759). For more background information, please refer to the previous notices relating to the development of the initial list and schedule and subsequent changes. 1 1 EPA notes that it is currently subject to a court-ordered schedule to complete the Agency's obligations under CAA section 183(e). Pursuant to this order, EPA must complete either regulations or control techniques guidelines
(CTGs)for the product categories on the current section 183(e) list. EPA may further revise and reorder the list of products in the future. Since the beginning of the CAA section 183(e) program, EPA has noted that the inclusion of a product category on the list of products for potential regulation is not the final action by the Agency on this decision, and that the Agency will make the final determination in conjunction with development of regulations that affect the product category. 2 2 *See* , “Final Listing of Product Categories for Regulation,” 63 FR 48792 (September 11, 1998). In this regulatory action, EPA confirmed that three product categories should be regulated under section 183(e). Similarly, this listing exercise is not the Agency's final determination that PFC should be regulated, or of the appropriate method for their regulation, under CAA section 183(e). EPA has proposed to regulate PFC under CAA section 183(e) as part of a proposed rule regarding emissions from the use of gasoline, passenger vehicles, and PFC. *See* , “Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources,” 71 FR 15804 (March 29, 2006), known as the mobile sources air toxics
(MSAT)rule. Interested parties may comment upon or challenge the inclusion of the product category in the CAA section 183(e) program in comments in that proceeding. *See* , 71 FR 15984 (“EPA will afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the data underlying the listing before taking final action” on this proposal). The final determination to regulate PFC under CAA section 183(e) will be made in conjunction with EPA's proposal for the MSAT rule. EPA encourages all interested parties to review that proposal and to comment upon EPA's proposed regulation of PFC under CAA section 183(e) in that rulemaking action. II. Why is EPA revising the list and schedule for regulation? By this action, EPA is adding the product category “portable fuel containers” to the CAA section 183(e) list and schedule for regulation and removing the category “petroleum dry cleaning solvents” from the CAA section 183(e) list. The PFC category includes portable liquid fuel containers and does not apply to containers holding non-liquid fuels (for example, propane). EPA has determined that PFC fall within the definition of “consumer and commercial product” found in CAA section 183(e) and that it is appropriate to consider this category for regulation under CAA section 183(e) in order to achieve VOC emission reductions. Section 183(e)(1)(B) of the CAA defines the term “consumer and commercial product” to mean: “any substance, product (including paints, coatings, and solvents), or article (including any container or packaging) held by any person, the use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which may result in the release of volatile organic compounds. The term does not include fuels or fuel additives regulated under section 211, or motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines as defined under section 216 of this title.” Accordingly, the statutory definition of consumer and commercial products includes a much broader array of products than those usually considered to be consumer products ( *e.g.* , personal care products, household cleaning products, household pesticides, etc.). The statutory definition of consumer and commercial products encompasses all VOC-emitting products used in or around the home, by businesses, by institutions, and in a wide range of industrial manufacturing operations. We note that PFC are not excluded by the references to “fuels and fuel additives regulated under CAA section 211” because the cans themselves are “containers” as contemplated in CAA section 183(e) and because regulation of the cans themselves will not affect the fuels or fuel additives within the containers. Although EPA did not identify PFC as a category of consumer and commercial products at the time of the initial product listing, information now available to EPA indicates that these products, in the aggregate, are a significant source of VOC emissions. People use PFC to refuel a wide variety of equipment. Their most frequent use is for refueling lawn and garden equipment such as lawn mowers, trimmers, and chainsaws. They are also routinely used for recreational equipment such as all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, and for passenger vehicles which have run out of fuel. About 95 percent of PFC are made of plastic (high density polyethylene). There are approximately 20 million PFC sold annually, and about 80 million PFC are in use nationwide. The average lifetime of a PFC is about 5 years. Gasoline fuels are highly volatile and evaporate easily from containers that are not sealed or closed properly. Although an individual PFC is a relatively modest emission source, the aggregate VOC emissions from PFC are quite significant. We estimate that nationwide VOC emissions from PFC were about 287,000 tons per year
(tpy)(about 261,000 megagrams per year) in 1990 (the CAA section 183(e) baseline year). 3 Current emissions are estimated to be about 315,000 tpy (about 286,000 megagrams per year), which is about 5 percent of the nationwide mobile source VOC emissions inventory. Left uncontrolled, a single PFC's evaporative emissions, in grams of VOC per day, are up to 60 times the VOC emissions of a new Tier 2 vehicle evaporative control system. PFC emissions are primarily of three types: Evaporative emissions from unsealed or open containers; permeation emissions from fuel passing through the walls of the plastic containers; and evaporative emissions from fuel spillage during use. 3 These estimates are based on emissions from PFC when used with gasoline. We have not included emissions from containers used with diesel and kerosene due to lack of data on which to base these estimates. However, we believe that emissions from containers used with diesel and kerosene would only slightly increase the total emissions estimates due to the very low volatility of these fuels. As a result of the significant aggregate VOC emissions from PFC, EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to consider PFC for regulation under CAA section 183(e) to achieve needed VOC emission reductions. Accordingly, the Agency is revising the list of consumer and commercial products to include the category. When EPA issued the original CAA section 183(e) list, EPA selected product categories that would account for approximately 80 percent of the VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas in the base year. Removal of the petroleum dry cleaning solvents category from the list, in combination with the addition of the PFC category, will maintain a list that accounts for approximately 80 percent of VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas in the base year. III. What criteria were considered in EPA's decision to add PFC to the list and schedule for regulation? EPA has followed the same process it used for the original listing exercise to evaluate whether to add PFC to the list at this time. In establishing criteria for regulating products, CAA section 183(e)(2)(B) directs the Administrator to consider the following factors:
(1)Uses, benefits, and commercial demand,
(2)Health and safety functions,
(3)Products which emit highly reactive VOC,
(4)Cost-effectiveness of control, and
(5)Availability of alternatives. Based on the five statutory factors, EPA developed the following eight criteria for ranking consumer and commercial products:
(1)Utility,
(2)Commercial demand,
(3)Health and safety functions,
(4)Emissions of highly reactive VOC,
(5)Availability of alternatives,
(6)Cost-effectiveness of controls,
(7)Magnitude of annual VOC emissions, and
(8)Regulatory efficiency and program considerations. The first statutory factor is evaluated using two criteria. Criterion 1 (Utility) considers uses and benefits of the product, and Criterion 2 (Commercial Demand) evaluates commercial demand for the product. The remaining four statutory factors are addressed individually by Criteria 3 through 6. Criteria 7 and 8 (magnitude of emissions and regulatory efficiency) reflect additional considerations not specifically prescribed in the CAA. EPA has exercised its discretion to include these criteria, as EPA believes they are important in prioritizing product categories for regulation. Criteria 1 through 7 were developed such that each product category could be evaluated numerically by assigning a score of 1 to 5 for each of the criteria, with a higher score indicating a higher priority for regulation. A complete discussion of the criteria is contained in Chapter 4 of “Study of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer and Commercial Products—Report to Congress,” EPA-453/R-94-066-A, March 1995. A copy of the full Report to Congress is in the docket. Furthermore, a copy of Chapter 4 is also included in the Technical Support Document
(TSD)for this action. 4 4 EPA notes that its general approach to the listing exercise and the criteria used by the Agency has been approved. *See* , *ALARM Caucus* v. * EPA* , 215 F.3d61 (D.C. Cir. 2000); *cert. denied* , 532 U.S. 1018 (2001). IV. What was the result of the ranking exercise for the PFC product category? EPA used 1990 emission estimates and other information on PFC in evaluating the product category to maintain consistency with the process used to form the initial list. Application of the criteria indicated that PFC ranked highly compared to the categories considered in the original listing exercise. A detailed discussion of that process as applied to PFC is included in the TSD. EPA concludes that PFC should receive high priority for regulation and, as a result, should be added to the CAA section 183(e) list and schedule for regulation. V. Which category is EPA removing from the schedule for regulation? Concurrent with the addition of PFC, the Agency is removing one product category, “petroleum dry cleaning solvents,” from the CAA section 183(e) list of products for regulation. The 1990 nonattainment area emissions estimate for petroleum dry cleaning solvents was 49,091 megagrams. When evaluated according to the criteria discussed above, the petroleum dry cleaning solvents category ranked lowest among the categories listed in the original CAA section 183(e) schedule for regulation in 1995. The results of the ranking exercise for petroleum dry cleaning solvents are documented in the TSD. VI. What portion of the 1990 CAA section 183(e) baseline does the schedule for regulation address? Section 183(e)(3)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to list and regulate categories that account for at least 80 percent of VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone. We base this calculation on the 1990 baseline of estimated VOC emissions from all consumer and commercial products in ozone nonattainment areas at that time. Because we had not previously identified PFC as a product category with significant VOC emissions, we did not include emission from this category towards the total emissions in the original 1990 baseline for all consumer and commercial products. We have now examined this product category and have added the estimated 1990 level of emissions from this category to the baseline we used for creation of the original CAA section 183(e) product list. Pursuant to CAA section 183(e), EPA has adjusted the 1990 nationwide VOC emissions estimate to account for reactivity. This process, which is discussed in detail in the TSD, is based on giving higher weight to highly-reactive compounds. The nationwide emissions estimate was further adjusted to reflect VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. Emissions for consumer products such as many household products, including PFC, generally track population ( *i.e.* , highly populated areas generally have higher use of a given product than sparsely populated areas). Therefore, the nonattainment area emissions of many consumer products, including PFC, are estimated to be proportional to the population in those areas. EPA estimated nonattainment area emissions in 1990 (the CAA section 183(e) baseline year) to be approximately 60 percent of nationwide emissions. This estimate is based on a 1990 nonattainment area population of 160 million divided by the total United States population of 260 million. As a result, the 1990 nationwide mass emissions estimate of 261,000 megagrams per year was adjusted for reactivity and scaled by population to yield reactivity-adjusted emissions of 228,722 megagrams in ozone nonattainment areas. Details of these calculations are provided in the TSD. Having included such emissions in the 1990 baseline, EPA has increased the baseline by 228,722 megagrams per year. This results in a change from 3,481,804 to 3,710,526 megagrams per year. Accordingly, we have recalculated the percentage of VOC emissions accounted for by the categories listed for regulation. This action (i.e., adding PFC and removing petroleum dry cleaning solvents) results in EPA listing for regulation categories that account for 2,968,998 megagrams per year, or 80.02 percent of the 1990 baseline. The revised list of categories scheduled for regulation is shown in Table 1. As noted above, CAA section 183(e) gives EPA the discretion to revise the list of products for regulation, or to change the groupings of products for regulation, so long as the requirements of the section are met. EPA will make appropriate adjustments to ensure that we continue to meet the requirement to regulate categories accounting for at least 80 percent of the 1990 baseline. Table 1.—Consumer and Commercial Products Schedule for Regulation Product category Emissions megagrams per year (Mg/yr) Group I: Consumer products 301,347 Shipbuilding and repair coatings 23,302 Aerospace coatings 165,892 Architectural coatings 362,454 Autobody refinishing coatings 85,509 Wood furniture coatings 88,109 Total for Group I 1,026,613 Group II: Flexible package printing materials 136,364 Lithographic printing materials 545,454 Letterpress printing materials 25,636 Industrial cleaning solvents 232,890 Flatwood paneling coatings 19,618 Total for Group II 959,962 Group III: Portable fuel containers 228,722 Aerosol spray paints 58,521 Paper, film, and foil coatings 92,064 Metal furniture coatings 97,220 Large appliance coatings 22,994 Total for Group III 499,521 Group IV: Miscellaneous metal products coatings 198,545 Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials 11,000 Miscellaneous industrial adhesives 185,175 Plastic parts coatings 20,000 Auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings 68,182 Total for Group IV 482,902 Emissions addressed by schedule 2,968,998 1990 CAA section 183(e) baseline emissions 3,710,526 Percentage of baseline addressed by schedule 80.02 VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review. This notice is not a rule; it is essentially an information sharing activity which does not impose regulatory requirements or costs. Therefore, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks), Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act do not apply to this notice. Also, this notice does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* Dated: May 11, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-7405 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8170-8] National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Meeting and Public Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notification of public meeting. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC. For additional information about registering for public comment, please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Due to limited space, seating at the NEJAC meeting will be on a first-come basis. DATES: The NEJAC meeting will take place at the Washington Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Washington, DC 20005. On-site registration for the NEJAC meeting will begin on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 11 a.m. The NEJAC will convene Tuesday, June 20, 2006, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The NEJAC will reconvene on Wednesday, June 21, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, June 22, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. One public comment session relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC is scheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 2006, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time. Members of the public who wish to participate in the public comment period are encouraged to pre-register by Wednesday, June 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Correspondence concerning the meeting should be sent to Ms. Victoria Robinson, NEJAC Program Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; via e-mail at *environmental-justice-epa@epa.gov;* by telephone at
(202)564-6349; or by FAX at
(202)564-1624. Additional information about the meeting is available at the Internet Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/nejac/meetings.html.* Pre-registration for all attendees is recommended. To register online, visit the Web site above. Requests for registration forms should be sent to Ms. Julianne Pardi of ICF International at: 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; Telephone:
(703)934-3873; E-mail: *jpardi@icfi.com,* or FAX:
(703)934-3270. Hearing-impaired individuals or non-English speaking attendees wishing to arrange for a sign language or foreign language interpreter, may make appropriate arrangements using these numbers also. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on areas that may include, among other things, “advice on EPA's progress, quality and adequacy in planning, developing and implementing environmental justice strategies, projects and programs” relating to environment justice. In order to provide such independent advice, the Agency requests that the NEJAC convene a focused, issue-oriented public meeting in Washington, DC. To help prepare for this specific focused policy issue meeting the following background information is provided: The meeting shall be used to receive comments on, discuss, and analyze what mechanisms will most effectively:
(1)Ensure continuation of timely, relevant and cogent public policy advice on environmental justice issues/concerns;
(2)enable impacted communities to continue to raise concerns to government agencies;
(3)support continued partnership-building and problem-solving capacity among EPA's regulatory partners and other environmental justice stakeholders; and
(4)promote opportunities for training and sharing lessons learned for all stakeholders involved in the environmental justice dialogue. The Agency, furthermore, requests that the NEJAC produce a comprehensive report on the differing views, interests, concerns, and perspectives expressed by the stakeholder participants on the focused policy issue, and provide advice and recommendations for the Agency's review and consideration. In order to fulfill this charge, the NEJAC is being asked to discuss and provide recommendations regarding the following broad public policy questions: • What venues and other mechanisms would be most effective for EPA to continue to obtain public policy advice on specific environmental justice issues/concerns? • What mechanisms would be most effective for EPA to receive timely advice on specific environmental justice issues/concerns that require action or decision on short notice? • What are the best mechanisms to continue to build a collaborative problem-solving capacity to address environmental justice issues/concerns among EPA's regulatory partners and other environmental justice stakeholders? In addition, the NEJAC will deliberate on two draft reports:
(1)the Gulf Coast Hurricanes Workgroup's draft advice and recommendations on the environmental justice issues related to natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and
(2)the Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee's draft report, “Unintended Impacts of Redevelopment and Revitalization Efforts in Five Environmental Justice Communities.” Documents that are the subject of NEJAC reviews normally are available from the originating EPA office and are not available from the NEJAC. The Gulf Coast Hurricanes Workgroup's draft advice and recommendations responds to the following question: How can EPA effectively address the vulnerabilities of all communities to public health and environmental risks and harms, including minority and low-income communities, in EPA's response and rebuilding, and preparedness and prevention efforts, in the aftermath of natural disasters similar to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, pursuant to the National Response Plan and applicable statutory authorities and their implementing regulations, as well as Executive Order 12898? The Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee's draft report provides draft advice and recommendations based upon lessons learned regarding unintended impacts of successful brownfields cleanup at redevelopment and revitalization projects in five minority, low-income, and/or tribal communities. *Public Comment:* Individuals or groups making oral presentations during the public comment period will be limited to a total time of five minutes. Only one representative of a community, an organization, or a group will be allowed to speak. Any number of written comments can be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals making public comment should be as follows: Name of Speaker, Name of Organization/Community, Address/Telephone/E-mail, Description of Concern and its Relationship to the policy issue(s), and Recommendations or desired outcome. If you wish to submit written comments of any length, at least 50 copies should be received by Friday, June 14, 2006. Written comments received after that date will be provided to the NEJAC as logistics allow. All information should be sent to the address, e-mail, or fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. Dated: May 10, 2006. Charles Lee, Designated Federal Officer, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. [FR Doc. E6-7410 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8170-6] Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). This OTC meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context. DATES: The meeting will be held June 6-7, 2006 starting at 1 p.m. on June 6, 2006 and ending June 7, 2006 at 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Radisson Hotel Boston, 200 Stuart Street, Boston, MA 02116;
(617)482-1800. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the agenda and registration for this meeting and all press inquiries should be directed to: Kromeklia Bryant, Ozone Transport Commission/MANE-VU Office, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 638, Washington, DC 20001;
(202)508-3840; e-mail: *ozone@otcair.org;* Web site: *http://www.otcair.org.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the “Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution.” Section 184(a) establishes an “Ozone Transport Region”
(OTR)comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR. The purpose of this notice is to announce that the OTC will meet on June 6-7, 2006 at the address noted earlier in this notice. This meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context. Section 176A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifies that the meeting of the OTC is not subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This meeting will be open to the public as space permits. *Type of Meeting:* Open. *Agenda:* Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC office
(202)508-3840; by e-mail: *ozone@otcair.org* or via the OTC Web site at *http://www.otcair.org.* Dated: April 28, 2006. Judith Katz, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-7408 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [Docket No. 06-06] Office of Thrift Supervision [No. 2006-20] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1254] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53773; File No. S7-08-06] Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Elevated Risk Complex Structured Finance Activities AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury (OTS); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)(collectively, the Agencies). ACTION: Notice of revised interagency statement with request for public comment. SUMMARY: On May 19, 2004, the Agencies issued and requested comment on a proposed Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Complex Structured Finance Activities (“Initial Statement”) of national banks, state banks, bank holding companies, Federal and state savings associations, savings and loan holding companies, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, and SEC registered broker-dealers and investment advisers (collectively, “financial institutions” or “institutions”). The Initial Statement described some of the internal controls and risk management procedures that may help financial institutions identify, manage, and address the heightened reputational and legal risks that may arise from certain complex structured finance transactions (“CSFTs”). After reviewing the comments received on the Initial Statement, the Agencies are requesting comment on a revised proposed interagency statement (“Revised Statement”). The Revised Statement has been modified in numerous respects to address issues and concerns raised by commenters, clarify the purpose, scope and effect of the statement, and make the statement more principles-based. These changes include reorganizing and streamlining the document to reduce redundancies and to focus the statement on those CSFTs that may pose heightened levels of legal or reputational risk to the relevant institution (referred to as “elevated risk CSFTs”). In addition, the Agencies have modified the examples of transactions that may present elevated risk to make these examples more risk-focused, and have recognized more explicitly that an institution's review and approval process for elevated risk CSFTs should be commensurate with, and focus on, the potential risks presented by the transaction to the institution. As discussed below, the Revised Statement will not affect or apply to the vast majority of small financial institutions, nor does it create any private rights of action. DATES: Comments on the Revised Statement should be received on or before June 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: *OCC:* You should include OCC and Docket Number 06-06 in your comment. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *OCC Web site: http://www.occ.treas.gov.* Click on “Contact the OCC,” scroll down and click on “Comments on Proposed Regulations.” • *E-mail address: regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.* • *Fax:*
(202)874-4448. • *Mail:* Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Mail Stop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* 250 E Street, SW., Attn: Public Information Room, Mail Stop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name
(OCC)and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this notice of proposed rulemaking. In general, OCC will enter all comments received into the docket without change, including any business or personal information that you provide. You may review comments and other related materials by any of the following methods: • *Viewing Comments Personally:* You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. You can make an appointment to inspect comments by calling
(202)874-5043. • *Viewing Comments Electronically:* You may request e-mail or CD-ROM copies of comments that the OCC has received by contacting the OCC's Public Information Room at: *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.* • *Docket:* You may also request available background documents and project summaries using the methods described above. *OTS:* You may submit comments, identified by No. 2006-20 by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: regs.comments@ots.treas.gov.* Please include No. 2006-20 in the subject line of the message, and include your name and telephone number in the message. • *Fax:*
(202)906-6518. • *Mail:* Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention: No. 2006-20. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, Attention: Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Attention: No. 2006-20. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and document number. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1.* In addition, you may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call
(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov,* or send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-7755. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. *Board:* You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OP-1254, by any of the following methods: • *Board's Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http//www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.* Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*
(202)452-3819 or
(202)452-3102. • *Mail:* Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments also may be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (C and 20th Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. *FDIC:* Written comments should be addressed to Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments/OES, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. (Fax number:
(202)898-3838; Internet address: *comments@fdic.gov* .) Comments may be inspected and photocopied in the FDIC Public Information Center, Room 100, 801 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days. *SEC:* Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/policy.shtml;* ) or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number S7-08-06 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-08-06. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/policy.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *OCC:* Kathryn E. Dick, Deputy Comptroller, Credit and Market Risk,
(202)874-4660; Grace E. Dailey, Deputy Comptroller, Large Bank Supervision,
(202)874-4610; or Ellen Broadman, Director, Securities and Corporate Practices Division,
(202)874-5210, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. *OTS:* Fred J. Phillips-Patrick, Director, Credit Policy, Examinations and Supervision Policy,
(202)906-7295; Deborah S. Merkle, Project Manager, Credit Policy, Examinations and Supervision Policy,
(202)906-5688; or David A. Permut, Senior Attorney, Business Transactions Division,
(202)906-7505, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. *Board:* Sabeth I. Siddique, Assistant Director,
(202)452-3861, Virginia Gibbs, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst,
(202)452-2521, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; or Kieran J. Fallon, Assistant General Counsel,
(202)452-5270, Anne B. Zorc, Attorney,
(202)452-3876, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. Users of Telecommunication Device for Deaf
(TTD)only, call
(202)263-4869. *FDIC:* Jason C. Cave, Associate Director,
(202)898-3548; Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection; or Mark G. Flanigan, Counsel, Supervision and Legislation Branch, Legal Division,
(202)898-7426, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. *SEC:* Mary Ann Gadziala, Associate Director, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations,
(202)551-6207; Catherine McGuire, Chief Counsel, Linda Stamp Sundberg, Senior Special Counsel (Banking and Derivatives), or Randall W. Roy, Branch Chief, Division of Market Regulation,
(202)551-5550, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Financial markets have grown rapidly over the past decade, and innovations in financial instruments have facilitated the structuring of cash flows and allocation of risk among creditors, borrowers and investors in more efficient ways. Financial derivatives for market and credit risk, asset-backed securities with customized cash flow features, specialized financial conduits that manage pools of assets, and other types of structured finance transactions serve important purposes, such as diversifying risks, allocating cash flows, and reducing cost of capital. As a result, structured finance transactions, including the more complex variations of these transactions, now are an essential part of U.S. and international capital markets. When a financial institution participates in a CSFT, it bears the usual market, credit, and operational risks associated with the transaction. In some circumstances, a financial institution also may face heightened legal or reputational risks due to its involvement in a CSFT. For example, a financial institution involved in a CSFT may face heightened risk if the customer's regulatory, tax or accounting treatment for the CSFT, or disclosures concerning the CSFT in its public filings or financial statements, do not comply with applicable laws, regulations or accounting principles. In some cases, certain CSFTs appear to have been used in illegal schemes that misrepresented the financial condition of public companies to investors and regulatory authorities. Those cases highlight the substantial legal and reputational risks that financial institutions may face when they participate in a CSFT that is used by the institution's customer to circumvent regulatory or financial reporting requirements or further other illegal behavior. 1 After conducting investigations, the OCC, Federal Reserve System and the SEC took strong and coordinated civil and administrative enforcement actions against certain financial institutions that engaged in CSFTs that appeared to have been designed or used to shield their customers' true financial health from the public. These actions involved significant financial penalties on the institutions and required the institutions to take several measures to strengthen their risk management procedures for CSFTs. 2 The complex structured finance relationships involving these financial institutions also sparked an investigation by the Permanent Subcommittee on Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate, 3 as well as numerous lawsuits by private litigants. 1 For a memorandum on the potential liability of a financial institution for securities laws violations arising from participation in a CSFT, see Letter from Annette L. Nazareth, Director, Division of Market Regulation, Securities and Exchange Commission, to Richard Spillenkothen and Douglas W. Roeder, dated December 4, 2003 (available at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/srletters/2004/* and *http://www.occ.treas.gov* ). 2 *See, e.g. In the Matter of Citigroup, Inc.,* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48230 (July 28, 2003), Written Agreement by and between Citibank, N.A. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, No. 2003-77 (July 28, 2003) (pertaining to transactions entered into by Citibank, N.A. with Enron Corp.), and Written Agreement by and between Citigroup, Inc. and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, dated July 28, 2003 (pertaining to transactions involving Citigroup Inc. and its subsidiaries and Enron Corp. and Dynegy Inc.); *SEC* v. *J.P. Morgan Chase,* SEC Litigation Release No. 18252 (July 28, 2003) and Written Agreement by and among J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the New York State Banking Department, dated July 28, 2003 (pertaining to transactions involving J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and its subsidiaries and Enron Corp.). 3 *See Fishtail, Bacchus, Sundance, and Slapshot: Four Enron Transactions Funded and Facilitated by U.S. Financial Institutions,* Report Prepared by the Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, Comm. on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, S. Rpt. 107-82 (2003). Following these investigations, the OCC, Board and SEC also conducted special reviews of several large banking and securities firms that are significant participants in the market for CSFTs. These reviews were designed to evaluate the new product approval, transaction approval, and other internal controls and processes used by these institutions to identify and manage the legal, reputational and other risks associated with CSFTs. These assessments indicated that many of the large financial institutions engaged in CSFTs already had taken meaningful steps to improve their control infrastructure relating to CSFTs. The Agencies also focused attention on the complex structured finance activities of financial institutions in the normal course of the supervisory process. II. Initial Statement To further assist financial institutions in identifying, managing, and addressing the risks that may be associated with CSFTs, the Agencies developed and requested public comment on the Initial Statement. 4 As a general matter, the Initial Statement provided that financial institutions engaged in CSFTs should have and maintain a comprehensive set of formal, firm-wide policies and procedures that are designed to allow the institution to identify, document, evaluate, and control the full range of credit, market, operational, legal, and reputational risks that may arise from CSFTs. The Initial Statement also described the types of policies and procedures that financial institutions should have for CSFTs in the following specific areas:
(1)Transaction approval;
(2)approval of new complex structured finance products;
(3)identification and management of the potential reputational and legal risk associated with CSFTs;
(4)review of the customer's proposed accounting and disclosures for CSFTs;
(5)documentation of CSFTs;
(6)management reporting for CSFTs;
(7)independent monitoring and analysis of the institution's compliance with its internal policies regarding CSFTs;
(8)role of internal audit; and
(9)training of personnel involved in CSFTs. 4 *See* 69 FR 28980, May 19, 2004. Among other things, the Initial Statement provided that financial institutions should establish a clear process for identifying those CSFTs that may create heightened legal or reputational risk for the institution, and included a list of transaction characteristics that may indicate that a CSFT (or series of CSFTs) creates elevated levels of legal or reputational risk for the institution. The Initial Statement also provided that an institution should ensure that transactions identified as being elevated risk CSFTs are thoroughly reviewed by the institution's control functions and management during the institution's transaction or new product approval processes. As part of this review, the Initial Statement indicated that the institution should obtain and document complete and accurate information about the customer's business objectives for entering into the transaction, as well as about the customer's proposed accounting treatment and financial disclosures relating to the transaction. III. Overview of Comments The Agencies collectively received comments on the Initial Statement from more than 40 persons, although many commenters submitted multiple comments or submitted identical comments to multiple Agencies. Commenters included banking organizations, trade associations, investment banks, consulting firms, public accounting firms, law firms, an association of state officials, and individuals. In addition to submitting written comments, some commenters also met with Agency representatives to discuss their views of the Initial Statement. Commenters generally supported the Agencies' efforts to describe the types of risk management procedures and internal controls that may help financial institutions identify and mitigate the legal and reputational risks associated with CSFTs. In this regard, many commenters recognized that financial institutions need a robust risk management and control framework to help institutions avoid becoming involved in CSFTs that are used for illegal or abusive purposes and to manage the risks associated with CSFTs. Virtually all of the commenters, however, recommended changes to the Initial Statement. For example, many commenters argued that the characteristics of CSFTs in general and of elevated risk CSFTs in particular identified in the Initial Statement were too broad and would encompass many structured finance products that are not novel or complex and that do not present heightened legal or reputational risks for participating financial institutions. These commenters argued, for example, that the Initial Statement could be read as requiring financial institutions to identify any structured finance transaction that involves a special purpose entity (“SPE”) or cross-border elements as an elevated risk CSFT. Many commenters also asserted that the internal controls and risk management processes described in the Initial Statement for CSFTs and elevated risk CSFTs were overly prescriptive and burdensome. For example, many commenters expressed concern that the Initial Statement could be read as requiring a financial institution to conduct a detailed and extensive pre-transaction review of all CSFTs regardless of the role that the institution played in the transaction, and regardless of whether the transaction's characteristics suggested that it may create significant legal, reputational or other risks for the institution. Similarly, many commenters argued that the Initial Statement imposed new and inappropriate obligations on financial institutions to confirm the validity of a customer's financial disclosures or accounting or tax treatment for a CSFT, and would establish new and extensive documentation requirements for CSFTs. Commenters asserted that, in light of these and other concerns, the Initial Statement had the potential to increase the legal risks faced by financial institutions participating in CSFTs. In addition, commenters argued that the Initial Statement, if implemented, would disrupt the market for legitimate structured finance products and place U.S. financial institutions at a competitive disadvantage in the market for CSFTs both in the United States and abroad. As a general matter, commenters recommended that the Agencies modify the Initial Statement to make it more principles-based and focused on transactions that may create elevated risks for a participating financial institution. For example, many commenters recommended that the Agencies modify the list of characteristics of elevated risk CSFTs to focus on factors that are likely indicators that a transaction may, in fact, create heightened legal or reputational risks for a participating institution. In addition, commenters recommended that the Agencies provide financial institutions greater flexibility to design internal controls and risk management procedures for CSFTs that are tailored to the size, activities and general internal control framework of the institution. Finally, many commenters recommended that the Agencies republish a revised statement for a new round of public comment. IV. Overview of Revised Statement The Agencies have substantially revised the Initial Statement in light of the comments. In particular, the Revised Statement has been shortened and reorganized to be more principles-based and to focus on elevated risk CSFTs. Because these revisions are substantial, and the Revised Statement is an important explanation of the key principles and best practices governing CSFT activities, the Agencies invite public comment on the Revised Statement. The Agencies continue to believe that it is important for a financial institution engaged in CSFTs to have policies and procedures that are designed to allow the institution to effectively manage and address the risks associated with its CSFT activities. These policies and procedures should, among other things, be designed to allow the institution to identify during its transaction and new product approval processes those CSFTs that may present elevated legal or reputational risks to the institution. In addition, an institution's policies and procedures should provide that CSFTs identified as potentially having elevated legal or reputational risks are reviewed by appropriate levels of control and management personnel at the institution, including personnel from control areas that are independent of the business line(s) involved in the transaction. The level and amount of due diligence conducted by an institution for an elevated risk CSFT should be commensurate with the transaction's potential risk to the institution. In conducting this due diligence, the institution may find it useful or necessary to obtain additional information from the customer or to obtain specialized advice from qualified in-house or outside accounting, tax, legal or other professionals. If, after evaluating an elevated risk CSFT, a financial institution determines that its participation in the CSFT would create significant legal or reputational risks for the institution, the financial institution should take appropriate steps to manage and address these risks. Such steps may include modifying the transaction or conditioning the institution's participation in the transaction upon the receipt of representations or assurances from the customer that reasonably address the heightened risks presented by the transaction. A financial institution should decline to participate in an elevated risk CSFT if, after conducting appropriate due diligence and taking appropriate steps to address the risks from the transaction, the institution determines that the transaction presents unacceptable risks to the institution or would result in a violation of applicable laws, regulations or accounting principles. With these broad principles in mind, the Agencies have made a number of changes to the Initial Statement to address the issues and concerns raised by commenters, to clarify the purpose, scope and effect of the Revised Statement, and to make the document more risk-focused. The Agencies believe that, with these changes, the Revised Statement promotes sound risk management principles while providing an individual financial institution greater flexibility to develop implementing policies, procedures and systems that are appropriately tailored to the nature, scope, complexity and risks of its CSFT activities and to the institution's general internal control framework. In particular, the Agencies have, among other things: • Focused the statement more clearly on those CSFTs that may present heightened legal or reputational risks to a participating institution; • Clarified that the statement does not apply to structured finance transactions, such as standard public mortgage-backed securities transactions, that are familiar to participants in the financial markets and have well-established track records and, for this reason, will not affect or apply to the vast majority of small financial institutions; • Modified the examples of CSFTs that may warrant additional scrutiny by an institution to focus on transactions that are more likely to present elevated levels of legal or reputational risk to an institution ( *e.g.,* transactions that raise concerns that the client will report or disclose the transaction in its public filings or financial statements in a manner that is materially misleading); • Clarified that the due diligence conducted by a financial institution for an elevated risk CSFT should focus on those issues identified by the institution as potentially creating heightened levels of legal or reputational risk for the institution; • Recognized that the role a financial institution plays in a CSFT may affect both the amount of information it has concerning the transaction and the level of legal or reputational risks presented by the transaction to the institution; • Streamlined and modified the documentation and general control portions of the statement to focus on the proper goals of an institution s policies and procedures in these areas; and • Provided that a financial institution operating in foreign jurisdictions may tailor its policies and procedures as appropriate to account for, and comply with, the applicable laws, regulations and standards of those foreign jurisdictions. Because many of the core elements of an effective control infrastructure are the same regardless of the business line involved, the Revised Statement continues to draw heavily on controls and procedures that the Agencies previously have found to be effective in assisting a financial institution to manage and control risks and identifies ways in which these controls and procedures can be applied effectively to elevated risk CSFTs. Moreover, as noted above, many of the large financial institutions that are actively involved in CSFT-related activities have taken steps in recent years to bolster and improve their risk management and internal control processes for CSFTs. Based on the Agencies' supervisory experience, the Agencies believe that the Revised Statement generally is consistent with the controls and processes used by large financial institutions to manage the risks arising from their CSFT activities. The Agencies propose to adopt the Revised Statement as supervisory guidance (in the case of the Federal banking agencies) or a policy statement (in the case of the SEC) and to use the Revised Statement in reviewing the internal controls and risk management systems of those financial institutions that are engaged in CSFTs as part of the Agencies' supervisory processes. Accordingly, the Revised Statement does not create any private rights of action, nor does it alter or expand the legal duties and obligations that a financial institution may have to a customer, its shareholders or other third parties under applicable law. The Agencies have added a statement to this effect in the Revised Statement. The Agencies request comment on all aspects of the Revised Statement. V. Paperwork Reduction Act The Agencies have determined that certain provisions of the Revised Statement contain collection of information requirements as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) (PRA). An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. OMB has reviewed and approved the proposed information collections for the FDIC, OTS, and OCC; the SEC is submitting their proposed information collection to OMB for review and approval; and the Board has reviewed the Revised Statement under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB (5 CFR 1320, appendix A.1). *OMB control numbers:* OCC: 1557-0229. OTS: 1550-0111. FRB: 7100-0311. FDIC: 3064-0148. SEC: 3235-0xxx (to be assigned). Comment was requested on the proposed information collections contained in the Initial Statement published for comment on May 19, 2004. As discussed above, many commenters asserted that the Initial Statement in general, and its documentation provisions in particular, were unduly burdensome and prescriptive. For this reason, some commenters asserted that the estimates of the burden (100 hours per respondent) were too low. In light of this and the modifications made to the Initial Statement, the Agencies have reconsidered the burden estimates previously published and are once again requesting comment before finalizing this statement. In response to the comments, the Agencies have made significant modifications to make the Revised Statement more principles-based and risk-focused than the Initial Statement, and to provide an individual institution greater flexibility in developing policies, procedures, and systems that are appropriate and tailored to the nature of the institution's CSFT activities and general internal control framework. The Agencies believe that the information collection requirements contained in the Revised Statement, as discussed earlier in the notice, are generally consistent with the types of policies and procedures that the large financial institutions actively involved in CSFTs have already developed and implemented as a matter of usual and customary business practices. Therefore, the information collections contained in the Revised Statement are significantly less burdensome than those estimated in the Initial Statement and, thus, the Agencies have revised the hourly estimate down from 100 hours per response to an average of 25 hours per response. New Estimates OCC *Number of Respondents:* 21. *Estimated Time per Response:* 25 hours. *Total Estimated Annual Burden:* 525 hours. OTS *Number of Respondents:* 5. *Estimated Time per Response:* 25 hours. *Total Estimated Annual Burden:* 125 hours. Board *Number of Respondents:* 20. *Estimated Time per Response:* 25 hours. *Total Estimated Annual Burden:* 500 hours. FDIC *Number of Respondents:* 5. *Estimated Time per Response:* 25 hours. *Total Estimated Annual Burden:* 125 hours. SEC *Number of Respondents:* 5. *Estimated Time per Response:* 25 hours. *Total Estimated Annual Burden:* 125 hours. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a)Whether the collections of information contained in the Revised Statement are necessary for the proper performance of the Agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b)The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Comments on the information collections contained in the Revised Statement should be addressed to: *OCC:* You should direct your comments to: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 1-5, Attention: 1557-0229, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to
(202)874-4448, or by electronic mail to *regs.comments@occ.treas.gov* . You can inspect and photocopy the comments at the OCC's Public Information Room, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. You can make an appointment to inspect the comments by calling
(202)874-5043. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0229, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725, 17th Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to
(202)395-6974. You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, or Camille Dickerson,
(202)874-5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. *OTS:* Information Collection Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552; send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-6518; or send an e-mail to *infocollection.comments@ots.treas.gov* . OTS will post comments and the related index on the OTS Internet site at *http://www.ots.treas.gov.* In addition, interested persons may inspect the comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment, call
(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov,* or send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-7755. To obtain a copy of the submission to OMB, contact Marilyn K. Burton at *marilyn.burton@ots.treas.gov,*
(202)906-6467, or fax number
(202)906-6518, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. *Board:* You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OP-1254, by any of the following methods: • Agency Web site: *http://www.federalreserve.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.* • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *regs.comments@federalreserve.gov* . Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • Fax:
(202)452-3819 or
(202)452-3102. • Mail: Michelle Long, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer
(202)452-3829, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD)users may contact
(202)263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. *FDIC:* Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act implications of this proposal. Such comments should refer to “Complex Structured Financial Transactions, 3064-0148.” Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.* • E-mail: *comments@FDIC.gov.* Include Complex Structured Financial Transactions, 3064-0148 in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Steven F. Hanft
(202)898-3907, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429. • Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. *SEC:* You should direct your comments to: Office of Management and Budget, Attention Desk Officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy sent to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 with reference to File No. S7-08-06. The proposed Revised Statement follows: Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Elevated Risk Complex Structured Finance Activities I. Introduction Financial markets have grown rapidly over the past decade, and innovations in financial instruments have facilitated the structuring of cash flows and allocation of risk among creditors, borrowers and investors in more efficient ways. Financial derivatives for market and credit risk, asset-backed securities with customized cash flow features, specialized financial conduits that manage pools of assets and other types of structured finance transactions serve important business purposes, such as diversifying risks, allocating cash flows, and reducing cost of capital. As a result, structured finance transactions now are an essential part of U.S. and international capital markets. Financial institutions have played and continue to play an active and important role in the development of structured finance products and markets, including the market for the more complex variations of structured finance products. When a financial institution participates in a complex structured finance transaction (“CSFT”), it bears the usual market, credit, and operational risks associated with the transaction. In some circumstances, a financial institution also may face heightened legal or reputational risks due to its involvement in a CSFT. For example, in some circumstances, a financial institution may face heightened legal or reputational risk if a customer's regulatory, tax or accounting treatment for a CSFT, or disclosures concerning the CSFT in its public filings or financial statements, do not comply with applicable laws, regulations or accounting principles. Indeed, some financial institutions have incurred significant legal costs and liability and suffered reputational harm due to their role in certain transactions that were used by customers to misrepresent the customers' financial condition to investors, regulatory authorities or others. Reputational risk poses a significant threat to financial institutions because the nature of their business requires them to maintain the confidence of customers, creditors and the general marketplace. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the regulatory Agencies) have long expected financial institutions to develop and maintain robust control infrastructures that enable them to identify, evaluate and address the risks associated with their business activities. Financial institutions also must conduct their activities in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. II. Scope and Purpose of Statement The regulatory Agencies are issuing this Statement to describe the types of risk management principles that we believe may help a financial institution to identify CSFTs that may pose heightened legal or reputational risks to the institution (“elevated risk CSFTs”) and to evaluate, manage and address these risks within the institution's internal control framework. 5 5 As used in this Statement, the term “financial institution” or “institution” refers to national banks in the case of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; federal and state savings associations and savings and loan holding companies in the case of the Office of Thrift Supervision; state member banks and bank holding companies (other than foreign banking organizations) in the case of the Federal Reserve Board; state nonmember banks in the case of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and registered broker-dealers and investment advisers in the case of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks supervised by the Office of the Comptroller, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation also are considered to be financial institutions for purposes of this Statement. Structured finance transactions encompass a broad array of products with varying levels of complexity. Most structured finance transactions, such as standard public mortgage-backed securities transactions, public securitizations of retail credit cards, asset-backed commercial paper conduit transactions, and hedging-type transactions involving “plain vanilla” derivatives and collateralized loan obligations, are familiar to participants in the financial markets, and these vehicles have a well-established track record. These transactions typically would not be considered CSFTs for the purpose of this Statement. Because this Statement focuses on sound practices related to CSFTs that may create heightened legal or reputational risks—transactions that typically are conducted by a limited number of large financial institutions—it will not affect or apply to the vast majority of financial institutions, including most small institutions. As in all cases, a financial institution should tailor its internal controls so that they are appropriate in light of the nature, scope, complexity and risks of its activities. Thus, for example, an institution that is actively involved in structuring and offering CSFTs that may create heightened legal or reputational risk for the institution should have a more formalized and detailed control framework than an institution that participates in these types of transactions less frequently. The internal controls and procedures discussed in this Statement are not all inclusive, and, in appropriate circumstances, an institution may find that other controls, policies, or procedures are appropriate in light of its particular CSFT activities. Because many of the core elements of an effective control infrastructure are the same regardless of the business line involved, this Statement draws heavily on controls and procedures that the Agencies previously have found to be effective in assisting a financial institution to manage and control risks and identifies ways in which these controls and procedures can be effectively applied to elevated risk CSFTs. Although this Statement highlights some of the most significant risks associated with elevated risk CSFTs, it is not intended to present a full exposition of all risks associated with these transactions. Financial institutions are encouraged to refer to other supervisory guidance prepared by the Agencies for further information concerning market, credit, operational, legal and reputational risks as well as internal audit and other appropriate internal controls. This Statement does not create any private rights of action, and does not alter or expand the legal duties and obligations that a financial institution may have to a customer, its shareholders or other third parties under applicable law. At the same time, adherence to the principles discussed in this Statement would not necessarily insulate a financial institution from regulatory action or any liability the institution may have to third parties under applicable law. III. Identification and Review of Elevated Risk Complex Structured Finance Transactions A financial institution that engages in CSFTs should maintain a set of formal, firm-wide policies and procedures that are designed to allow the institution to identify, evaluate, assess, document, and control the full range of credit, market, operational, legal and reputational risks associated with these transactions. These policies may be developed specifically for CSFTs, or included in the set of broader policies governing the institution generally. A financial institution operating in foreign jurisdictions may tailor its policies and procedures as appropriate to account for, and comply with, the applicable laws, regulations and standards of those jurisdictions. 6 6 In the case of U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, the institution should coordinate these policies with the foreign bank's group-wide policies developed in accordance with the rules of the foreign bank's home country supervisor. In addition, the U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks should implement a control infrastructure for CSFTs, including management, review and approval requirements, that is consistent with the institution's overall corporate and management structure as well as its framework for risk management and internal controls. A financial institution's policies and procedures should establish a clear framework for the review and approval of individual CSFTs. These policies and procedures should set forth the responsibilities of the personnel involved in the origination, structuring, trading, review, approval, documentation, verification, and execution of CSFTs. Financial institutions may find it helpful to incorporate the review of new CSFTs into their existing new product policies. In this regard, a financial institution should define what constitutes a “new” complex structured finance product and establish a control process for the approval of such new products. In determining whether a CSFT is new, a financial institution may consider a variety of factors, including whether it contains structural or pricing variations from existing products, whether the product is targeted at a new class of customers, whether it is designed to address a new need of customers, whether it raises significant new legal, compliance or regulatory issues, and whether it or the manner in which it would be offered would materially deviate from standard market practices. An institution's policies should require new complex structured finance products to receive the approval of all relevant control areas that are independent of the profit center before the product is offered to customers. A. Identifying Elevated Risk CSFTs As part of its transaction and new product approval controls, a financial institution should establish and maintain policies, procedures and systems to identify elevated risk CSFTs. Because of the potential risks they present to the institution, transactions or new products identified as elevated risk CSFTs should be subject to heightened reviews during the institution's transaction or new product approval processes. Examples of transactions that an institution may determine warrant this additional scrutiny are those that (either individually or collectively) appear to the institution during the ordinary course of its transaction approval or new product approval process to: • Lack economic substance or business purpose; • Be designed or used primarily for questionable accounting, regulatory, or tax objectives, particularly when the transactions are executed at year end or at the end of a reporting period for the customer; • Raise concerns that the client will report or disclose the transaction in its public filings or financial statements in a manner that is materially misleading or inconsistent with the substance of the transaction or applicable regulatory or accounting requirements; • Involve circular transfers of risk (either between the financial institution and the customer or between the customer and other related parties) that lack economic substance or business purpose; • Involve oral or undocumented agreements that, when taken into account, would have a material impact on the regulatory, tax, or accounting treatment of the related transaction, or the client s disclosure obligations; 7 7 This item is not intended to include traditional, non-binding “comfort” letters or assurances provided to financial institutions in the loan process where, for example, the parent of a loan customer states that the customer ( *i.e.* , the parent's subsidiary) is an integral and important part of the parent's operations. • Have material economic terms that are inconsistent with market norms ( *e.g.* , deep in the money options or historic rate rollovers); or • Provide the financial institution with compensation that appears substantially disproportionate to the services provided or investment made by the financial institution or to the credit, market or operational risk assumed by the institution. The examples listed previously are provided for illustrative purposes only, and the policies and procedures established by financial institutions may differ in how they seek to identify elevated risk CSFTs. The goal of each institution's policies and procedures, however, should remain the same—to identify those CSFTs that warrant additional scrutiny in the transaction or new product approval process due to concerns regarding legal or reputational risks. Financial institutions that structure or market, act as an advisor to a customer regarding, or otherwise play a substantial role in a transaction may have more information concerning the customer's business purpose for the transaction and any special accounting, tax or financial disclosure issues raised by the transaction than institutions that play a more limited role. Thus, the ability of a financial institution to identify the risks associated with an elevated risk CSFT may differ depending on its role. B. Due Diligence, Approval and Documentation Process for Elevated Risk CSFTs Having developed a process to identify elevated risk CSFTs, a financial institution should implement policies and procedures to conduct a heightened level of due diligence for these transactions. The financial institution should design these policies and procedures to allow personnel at an appropriate level to understand and evaluate the potential legal or reputational risks presented by the transaction to the institution and to manage and address any heightened legal or reputational risks ultimately found to exist with the transaction. *Due Diligence.* If a CSFT is identified as an elevated risk CSFT, the institution should carefully evaluate and take appropriate steps to address the risks presented by the transaction with a particular focus on those issues identified as potentially creating heightened levels of legal or reputational risk for the institution. In general, a financial institution should conduct the level and amount of due diligence for an elevated risk CSFT that is commensurate with the level of risks identified. A financial institution that structures or markets an elevated risk CSFT to a customer, or that acts as an advisor to a customer or investors concerning an elevated risk CSFT, may have additional responsibilities under the federal securities laws, the Internal Revenue Code, state fiduciary laws or other laws or regulations and, thus, may have greater legal and reputational risk exposure with respect to an elevated risk CSFT than a financial institution that acts only as a counterparty for the transaction. Accordingly, a financial institution may need to exercise a higher degree of care in conducting its due diligence when the institution structures or markets an elevated risk CSFT or acts as an advisor concerning such a transaction than when the institution plays a more limited role in the transaction. To appropriately understand and evaluate the potential legal and reputational risks associated with an elevated risk CSFT that a financial institution has identified, the institution may find it useful or necessary to obtain additional information from the customer or to obtain specialized advice from qualified in-house or outside accounting, tax, legal, or other professionals. As with any transaction, an institution should obtain satisfactory responses to its material questions and concerns prior to consummation of a transaction. 8 8 Of course, financial institutions also should ensure that their own accounting for transactions complies with applicable accounting standards, consistently applied. In conducting its due diligence for an elevated risk CSFT, a financial institution should independently analyze the potential risks to the institution from both the transaction and the institution's overall relationship with the customer. Institutions should not conclude that a transaction identified as being an elevated risk CSFT involves minimal or manageable risks solely because another financial institution will participate in the transaction or because of the size or sophistication of the customer or counterparty. Moreover, a financial institution should carefully consider whether it would be appropriate to rely on opinions or analyses prepared by or for the customer concerning any significant accounting, tax or legal issues associated with an elevated risk CSFT. *Approval Process.* A financial institution's policies and procedures should provide that CSFTs identified as having elevated legal or reputational risk are reviewed and approved by appropriate levels of control and management personnel. The designated approval process for such CSFTs should include representatives from the relevant business line(s) and/or client management, as well as from appropriate control areas that are independent of the business line(s) involved in the transaction. The personnel responsible for approving an elevated risk CSFT on behalf of a financial institution should have sufficient experience, training and stature within the organization to evaluate the legal and reputational risks, as well as the credit, market and operational risks to the institution. The institution's control framework should have procedures to deliver the necessary or appropriate information to the personnel responsible for reviewing or approving an elevated risk CSFT to allow them to properly perform their duties. Such information may include, for example, the material terms of the transaction, a summary of the institution's relationship with the customer, and a discussion of the significant legal, reputational, credit, market and operational risks presented by the transaction. Some institutions have established a senior management committee that is designed to involve experienced business executives and senior representatives from all of the relevant control functions within the financial institution, including such groups as independent risk management, accounting, policy, legal, compliance, and financial control, in the oversight and approval of CSFTs identified as having elevated risks. While this type of management committee may not be appropriate for all financial institutions, a financial institution should establish processes that assist the institution in consistently managing its elevated risk CSFTs on a firm-wide basis. 9 9 The control processes that a financial institution establishes for CSFTs should take account of, and be consistent with, any informational barriers established by the institution to manager potential conflicts of interests, insider trading or other concerns. If, after evaluating an elevated risk CSFT, the financial institution determines that its participation in the CSFT would create significant legal or reputational risks for the institution, the institution should take appropriate steps to address those risks. Such actions may include declining to participate in the transaction, or conditioning its participation upon the receipt of representations or assurances from the customer that reasonably address the heightened legal or reputational risks presented by the transaction. Any representations or assurances provided by a customer should be obtained before a transaction is executed and be received from, or approved by, an appropriate level of the customer's management. A financial institution should decline to participate in an elevated risk CSFT if, after conducting appropriate due diligence and taking appropriate steps to address the risks from the transaction, the institution determines that the transaction presents unacceptable risk to the institution or would result in a violation of applicable laws, regulations or accounting principles. *Documentation.* The documentation that financial institutions use to support CSFTs is often highly customized for individual transactions and negotiated with the customer. Careful generation, collection and retention of documents associated with elevated risk CSFTs are important control mechanisms that may help an institution monitor and manage the legal, reputational, operational, market, and credit risks associated with the transaction. In addition, sound documentation practices may help reduce unwarranted exposure to the financial institution's reputation. A financial institution should create and collect sufficient documentation to allow the institution to: • Document the material terms of the transaction; • Enforce the material obligations of the counterparties; • Confirm that customers have received any required disclosures concerning the transaction; and • Verify that the institution s policies and procedures are being followed and allow the internal audit function to monitor compliance with those policies and procedures. When an institution's policies and procedures require an elevated risk CSFT to be submitted for approval to senior management, the institution should maintain the transaction-related documentation provided to senior management as well as other documentation that reflect management's approval (or disapproval) of the transaction, any conditions imposed by senior management, and the reasons for such action. The institution should retain documents created for elevated risk CSFTs in accordance with its record retention policies and procedures as well as applicable statutes and regulations. C. Other Risk Management Principles for Elevated Risk CSFTs *General Business Ethics.* The board and senior management of a financial institution also should establish a “tone at the top” through both actions and formalized policies that sends a strong message throughout the financial institution about the importance of compliance with the law and overall good business ethics. The board and senior management should strive to create a firm-wide corporate culture that is sensitive to ethical or legal issues as well as the potential risks to the financial institution that may arise from unethical or illegal behavior. This kind of culture coupled with appropriate procedures should reinforce business-line ownership of risk identification, and encourage personnel to move ethical or legal concerns regarding elevated risk CSFTs to appropriate levels of management. In appropriate circumstances, financial institutions may also need to consider implementing mechanisms to protect personnel by permitting the confidential disclosure of concerns. 10 As in other areas of financial institution management, compensation and incentive plans should be structured, in the context of elevated risk CSFTs, so that they provide personnel with appropriate incentives to have due regard for the legal, ethical and reputational risk interests of the institution. 10 The agencies note that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires companies listed on a national securities exchange or inter-dealer quotation system of a national securities association to establish procedures that enable employees to submit concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters on a confidential, anonymous basis. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78j-1(m). *Monitoring Compliance with Internal Policies and Procedures.* The events of recent years evidence the need for an effective oversight and review program for elevated risk CSFTs. Financial institutions should conduct periodic independent reviews of their CSFT activities to verify that their policies and controls relating to elevated risk CSFTs are being implemented effectively and that elevated risk CSFTs are accurately identified and receive proper approvals. Such monitoring may include more frequent assessments of the risk arising from elevated risk CSFTs, both individually and within the context of the overall customer relationship, and the results of this monitoring should be provided to an appropriate level of management in the financial institution. *Training.* An institution should identify relevant personnel who may need specialized training regarding CSFTs to be able to effectively perform their oversight and review responsibilities. Appropriate training on the financial institution's policies and procedures for handling elevated risk CSFTs is critical. Financial institution personnel involved in CSFTs should be familiar with the institution's policies and procedures concerning elevated risk CSFTs, including the processes established by the institution for identification and approval of elevated risk CSFTs and new complex structured finance products and for the elevation of concerns regarding transactions or products to appropriate levels of management. Financial institution personnel should be trained to identify and properly handle elevated risk CSFTs that may result in a violation of law. *Audit.* The internal audit department of any financial institution is integral to its defense against fraud, unauthorized risk taking and damage to the financial institution's reputation. The internal audit department of a financial institution should regularly audit the financial institution's adherence to its own control procedures relating to elevated risk CSFTs, and further assess the adequacy of its policies and procedures related to elevated risk CSFTs. Internal audit should periodically validate that business lines and individual employees are complying with the financial institution's standards for elevated risk CSFTs and appropriately identifying any exceptions. This validation should include transaction testing for elevated risk CSFTs. *Reporting* . A financial institution's policies and procedures should provide for the appropriate levels of management and the board of directors to receive sufficient information and reports concerning the institution's elevated risk CSFTs to perform their oversight functions. IV. Conclusion Structured finance products have become an essential and important part of the U.S. and international capital markets, and financial institutions have played an important role in the development of structured finance markets. In some instances, however, CSFTs have been used to misrepresent a customer's financial condition to investors and others, and financial institutions involved in these transactions have sustained significant legal and reputational harm. In light of the potential legal and reputational risks associated with CSFTs, a financial institution should have effective risk management and internal control systems that are designed to allow the institution to identify elevated risk CSFTs, to evaluate, manage and address the risks arising from such transactions, and to conduct those activities in compliance with applicable law. Dated: May 4, 2006. John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency. Dated: May 8, 2006. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John M. Reich, Director. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 9, 2006. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC, the 9th day of May, 2006. By order of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Dated: May 9, 2006. By the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-4510 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 16
7 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 95-91
  • 40 CFR 9
  • 5 CFR 1320.12
  • 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)
  • 532 U.S. 1018
  • Pub. L. 92-463
  • 5 CFR 1320
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of open meeting
C.F.R.§ 385.211
C.F.R.§ 154.210
C.F.R.§ 385.214
C.F.R.§ 157.10
C.F.R.§ 385.2001
U.S.C.§ 824e
C.F.R.§ 366.3
U.S.C.§ 791
U.S.C.§ 3501
SCOTUS532 U.S. 1018
Pub. L.Pub. L. 95-91
Cite40 CFR 9
Cites 23 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.