Proposed Rules. Notice of data availability and request for comment
21,246 words·~97 min read·
/register/2006/05/26/06-4875A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [FRL-8174-9] Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability; New Information Concerning SNAP Program Proposal on Ozone Depleting Substitutes in Foam Blowing AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is making available to the public new information related to a November 4, 2005 proposed rule under the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP)program under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (70 FR 67120). The SNAP program reviews alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances and approves the use of alternatives which reduce the overall risk to public health and the environment. The November 4, 2005 proposed rule proposed to list two hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)—HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b—as unacceptable substitutes in foam blowing applications, but proposed to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. In response to the November 2005 proposal, EPA received public comments, which have been made available through the Air Docket (see General Information section below for docket contact information). The Agency has also received additional information regarding the technical viability of non-ozone depleting alternatives in blowing agents available for polyurethane “pour foam” and the extruded polystyrene foam industries. Today, the Agency is requesting comment on these materials. We plan to consider this information, and any comment received during the comment period, in determining what future action to take on our November 4, 2005 proposal regarding the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in foam blowing applications. This information may impact the outcome of the final rule, such as adjusting the January 1, 2010 grandfathering date or clarifying the definition of “existing use.” DATES: We will accept comments on the new data through June 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided at the beginning of the supplementary information section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this notice, contact Seema Schappelle by telephone at
(202)343-9548, or by e-mail at *schappelle.seema@epa.gov* . Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 1310 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program are available on the internet at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information ? B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? II. What is today's action? III. What information is EPA making available for review and comment? IV. Where can I get the data being made available for comment? V. Why is EPA making this data available? VI. What is EPA not taking comment on? VII. What supporting documentation do I need to include in my comments? I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information? 1. Docket EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507 (continuation of OAR-2003-0228 and Docket A-2000-18). The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Hard copies of documents from prior to the public comment period are found under Docket ID No. A-2000-18. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202)566-1742, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202)566-1742. 2. Electronic Access An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in section I.B.1. above. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in section I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at *http://www.regulations.gov,* and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select “Information Sources,” “Dockets,” and “EPA Dockets.” Once in the system, key in Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to *A-And-R-Docket@epa.gov* , Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in section I.B.1. These electronic submissions will be accepted in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail Send two copies of your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC., Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in section I.B.1. 4. By Facsimile Fax your comments to: 202-566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-2004-0507. C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Seema Schappelle, U.S. EPA, 8th floor, 1310 L Street NW, Washington DC 20005 via overnight delivery service, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. II. What is today's action? Today, we are requesting comment on additional information developed after the comment period on the appropriate period for grandfathering existing users in certain end uses for foam blowing applications. In the November 4, 2005 proposed rule, EPA proposed two actions regarding the acceptability of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the foam sector. First, EPA proposed to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable foam blowing agent substitutes for HCFC-141b in commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and “other” foam, but proposed to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. Second, EPA proposed to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes for CFCs in all foam end-uses, but proposed to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. Based on the public comments received, it became apparent that several manufacturers had made significant progress in adopting non-ozone depleting substances
(ODS)alternatives for specific foam applications. Beginning with a previous proposal on the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in foam manufacturing on July 11, 2000 (65 FR 42653), the Agency has continually monitored the progress of the industry's transition to alternatives. In the July 22, 2002 final SNAP rule to that proposal (67 FR 47703), EPA reiterated that it would monitor progress on the transition and make adjustments as needed: “EPA is continuing to review the commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and other foams end-uses to determine the progress of non-ozone depleting alternatives. As non-ozone depleting alternatives become more widely available, the Agency will reevaluate the acceptability of HCFCs in these end uses. Therefore, foam manufacturers within these applications that are using HCFCs should begin using non-ozone depleting alternatives as soon as they are available in anticipation of future EPA action restricting the use of HCFCs.” In keeping with that policy, especially in light of public comments on the November 2005 proposal, EPA asked Stratus Consulting, Inc. to evaluate the availability and technical viability of alternatives in the polyurethane “pour foam” and the extruded polystyrene foam industries. We are making the evaluation from Stratus available for comment and plan to consider this information and any comment received during the comment period in determining what the appropriate grandfathering period should be for existing use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in foam blowing applications. III. What information is EPA making available for review and comment? EPA is making available two reports by Stratus Consulting, Inc. on the availability and technical viability of alternatives in the polyurethane “pour foam” and the extruded polystyrene foam industries. The information for these assessments was collected directly from industry representatives through meetings and phone conversations. The conclusions (and in the case of pour foam, recommendations) provided in these two reports are provided below. 1. Polyurethane “Pour Foam” a. Conclusions i. Non-ODS alternatives are available, currently being formulated by systems houses, and technically viable across all end uses. ii. No technical performance hurdles to using non-ODS alternatives were identified that cannot be overcome either through design changes or with support from suppliers and systems houses. iii. EPA's 2000 SNAP proposal, which addresses the use of HCFCs in foam manufacturing, stated that it can take up to four years to complete blowing agent transitions (U.S. EPA, 2000). The transition requires six steps:
(1)Obtaining new permits or modifying existing permits,
(2)changing equipment to optimize production and ensure worker safety,
(3)establishing raw material suppliers,
(4)developing formulations,
(5)testing final products, and
(6)obtaining final product review and approval by relevant boards and agencies. Companies that chose to plan ahead for the eventual phase-out of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b could have initiated this process in the period from 2002 to 2003, when the current suite of alternatives became available, if not before, and could have completed the first four steps by the current date. Thus, these companies could anticipate completing their conversion by 2006 or 2007. iv. Those companies that have not taken the initial steps to transition to non-ODS blowing agents should be able to have market-ready products by January 2008. This is based on two findings. First, most if not all, systems houses have already developed non-ODS formulations; and second, several manufacturers of finished pour foam products (including walk-in storage coolers, reach-in storage coolers, metal panels, insulated beverage dispensers, picnic coolers, and entry and garage doors) were able to convert to non-ODS formulations within 18 months. v. Several end users that converted from HCFC-141b to HCFC-22 made the decision to convert to HCFC-22 under the assumption that HCFC-22 would be an acceptable alternative until January 1, 2010 (Russell, 2006f). vi. Those companies that have already converted to HFC alternatives are bearing higher system costs than those that have not. While some of these companies were forced to convert to HFCs because they used HCFC-141b for an extended period of time and were therefore unable to allot the time necessary to transition to HCFC-22, others chose to convert to HFC alternatives to be environmentally proactive and avoid a second conversion in the future. vii. Any grandfathering period for current HCFC-22 users that would extend beyond January 1, 2008 would put those who have already converted to HFCs in a higher cost position for an extended period of time. Companies that converted and adopted ozone friendly substitutes to HCFC-141b based on EPA's July 11, 2000 proposed rulemaking, are competitively disadvantaged. viii. Shortening the grandfather period is consistent with the spirit of the narrowed use limits. However, product sectors should be allowed sufficient time to complete the conversions. b. Recommendations i. EPA needs to allow sufficient time for companies to test final products, and obtain final review and approval from customers, code bodies, agencies, and relevant boards in order to complete conversions to non-ODS-alternatives across product sectors. It is probable that end users will be able to complete the final steps for a successful conversion in 9-14 months. ii. If EPA chooses to remove the narrowed use limits for sandwich panels, slabstock, and other pour foam applications, a grandfathering deadline of January 1, 2008 is recommended for existing users. By this date, all companies would have had sufficient time to convert to available non-ODS alternatives. This timeline would give companies that converted from HCFC-141b to HCFC-22 several more years of operations and cost savings to offset their initial costs of converting from HCFC-141b to HCFC-22. 2. Extruded Polystyrene Foam c. Conclusions i. XPS boardstock made from non-ODS blowing agent technology has been produced in Europe since 2001. These products have been commercially accepted by the existing customer base, and the industry did not experience a loss of competitive position with respect to non-XPS foam insulation products (BASF, 2004; Dow Chemical Company, 2005). ii. The characterization of R-value specifications differs between Europe and the United States. This is a major driving force for U.S. manufacturers optimizing blowing agents because specific R-values have a more direct effect on the competitiveness of the product in this country. iii. European and United States markets demand different physical dimensions. As described above, narrower, thicker, and higher density products are easier to produce with alternative formulations such as those commercialized in Europe. iv. The chemical and physical property comparisons between non-ODS alternatives and HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 indicate that commercially viable alternatives will be adopted shortly by U.S. manufacturers. In fact, companies considering additional capacity are likely to have developed a viable solution before committing funds for capital expansion. v. U.S. manufacturers are probably considering the following options, based on the physical properties of these blowing agents both individually and when incorporated into blends (UNEP, 2005): 1. HFC-134a 2. Hydrocarbons 3. Ethanol 4. HFC-152a 5. CO <sup>2</sup> 6. Other alternatives currently under development. vi. It takes approximately 30-36 months to order and install new equipment, and manufacture products that meet specifications. Formulations need to be identified by 2007 to meet the January 1, 2010, deadline; thus these lines will be ready for manufacturing integration in late 2008 or early 2009. It would benefit companies developing new capacity before January 1, 2010, to install flexible technologies that could use HCFC-142b, if necessary, and easily switch to alternatives by the deadline. The Agency is seeking comments on the accuracy and thoroughness of the information in the two reports summarized above. IV. Where can I get the data being made available for comment? All of the data in which we are seeking comment can be obtained through the Air Docket (see General Information section above for docket contact information). Reference numbers are as follows: —Memo on Review of SNAP Approved Non-Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents Available to the Extruded Polystyrene Foam Industry—Air Docket, OAR-2004-0507 reference number XX —Memo on Technical Viability of SNAP Approved Non-Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents Available for Pour Foam Applications—Air Docket, OAR-2004-0507 reference number XX V. Why is EPA making this data available? We are soliciting comment on this new information to ensure that we use the best information available when we determine how to proceed on the grandfathering period proposed in our November 4, 2005 proposal to list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable. Because the information on which we are seeking comment will be considered by EPA in determining how to proceed on our proposal regarding the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in foam blowing applications, the Agency is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the quality of the available information. This information will be used to ensure that issues relating to the technical viability of alternatives and industry impacts are fully considered by EPA prior to moving forward with a rulemaking in the foams sector. VI. What is EPA not taking comment on? EPA is only accepting comments on accuracy and completeness of the information outlined in today's **Federal Register** Notice. VII. What supporting documentation do I need to include in my comments? Please provide any published studies or raw data supporting your position. Dated: May 12, 2006. Brian McLean, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E6-8177 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-R04-SFUND-2006-0385; FRL-8173-8] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site from the National Priorities List: request for comments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)Region 4 announces its intent to delete the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site (the Site) from the National Priorities List
(NPL)and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GEPD)have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and therefore, further response measures pursuant to CERCLA are not appropriate. DATES: Comments concerning this proposed action may be submitted on or before: June 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND-2006-0385, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *farrier.brian@epa.gov* • Fax: 404-562-8896/Attn Brian Farrier • Mail: Brian Farrier, U.S. EPA Region 4, WMD-SRTSB, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND-2006-0385. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at * http:// www.regulations.gov, * including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.,* CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 4 office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Written comments may be submitted to Brian Farrier within 30 days of the date of this publication. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Farrier, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, or e-mail at *farrier.brian@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction The EPA Region 4 announces its intent to delete the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site, located in Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia, from the NPL, which constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, and requests comments on this proposed action. EPA identifies sites on the NPL that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action. EPA will accept comments concerning this proposed action for thirty days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . II. NPL Deletion Criteria The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from, or re-categorized on, the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i)Responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii)All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii)The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), provides in pertinent part that: “If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the Site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. * * *” EPA policy interprets this provision of CERCLA to apply to those sites where treated, in this case solidified, waste remains on-site. On that basis, for reasons set forth below, the statutory requirement has been satisfied at this Site, and five year reviews and operation and maintenance activities will be required. In the event new information is discovered which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate appropriate remedial actions. In addition, whenever there is a significant release from a site previously deleted from the NPL, that site may be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazardous Ranking System. Accordingly, the Site is qualified for deletion from the NPL. III. Deletion Procedures EPA will accept and evaluate public comments before making a final decision on deletion. The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of the site: 1. EPA has consulted with the GEPD on this proposed action, and GEPD has concurred with the deletion decision; 2. Concurrently with this Notice of Intent, a notice has been published in local newspapers and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state and local officials and other interested parties announcing a 30-day public comment period on the proposed deletion from the NPL; and 3. The Region has made all relevant documents available at the information repositories. The Region will respond to significant comments, if any, submitted during the comment period. Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes to assist Agency management. A deletion occurs when EPA's Regional Administrator places a final notice in the **Federal Register** . Generally, the NPL will reflect any deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if any, will be made available to local residents by the Regional office. IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion The following site summary provides the EPA's rationale for the intention to delete this Site from the NPL. The Cedartown Industries, Inc. site is located in Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia. The Site is 6.8 acres in size and it was used as an iron foundry beginning in 1874, smelting iron ore from regional iron mines northwest of Cedartown. In addition to iron smelting, pumps and plow blades were manufactured, and a machine shop was operated, beginning in the 1930s. Then, from February 1978 to May 1980, the site operated a secondary lead smelting business. It is the lead smelting operations that resulted in the majority of the environmental impact at the Site. In 1986, GEPD conducted a site inspection and found approximately 5,000 cubic yards of slag material and 32,000 gallons of wastewater in an inactive impoundment, in addition to elevated concentrations of lead and cadmium in site waste piles and in the soil. EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the NPL in June 1988, finalizing the site's listing in February 1990. In March 1990, under the direction of the EPA, an Interim Waste Removal was implemented to remove the slag pile, contaminated soil and debris, wastewater, and impoundment sediment from the site; in all, a total of 8,380 tons of solid material was disposed of off-site, in addition to 485, 360 pounds of liquid waste and a small amount of reclaimed coke. Based on Cedartown Industries, Inc. records and other information, GEPD and EPA identified a number of potentially responsible parties (PRPs). In 1990, the Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group entered into an Administrative Order of Consent with EPA. This Order required the Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. The RI/FS was conducted from 1990 to 1993. The purpose of the RI is to identify the nature and extent of contamination, whereas the purpose of the FS is to identify the options available to remediate this contamination. The RI documented inorganic contamination in soil and groundwater. After reviewing the results of the RI/FS, EPA issued a Record of Decision
(ROD)on May 7, 1993. The selected remedy called for the excavation and onsite treatment of impacted soils by stabilization/solidification, with onsite disposal. Soils with lead levels above 500 milligrams per kilogram were excavated; these soils were then treated until four treatment standards were met, as detailed in the ROD. In addition, the ROD also called for monitoring of the groundwater beneath the site, with a contingency remedy to be invoked at EPA's discretion, as necessary. On May 24, 1994, a Consent Decree was negotiated between EPA and the Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group, for the performance of the Remedial Design and the Remedial Action. The Remedial Action was implemented in 1996, with a total of 11,555 cubic yards of soils excavated and treated. The final inspection was conducted at the site on August 8, 1996, with representatives present from EPA, EPA's oversight contractor, GEPD, the supervising contractor, and the remediation contractor, and the property owner. This inspection indicated that components of the remedy had been constructed in accordance with the ROD and the remedial design, with two outstanding items identified: Proper establishment of the vegetative ground cover ( *i.e.* , grass) and stormwater accumulation. Plans were made to address these two items and a certificate of construction completion was submitted to EPA in September 1996, with EPA approval in March 1997. Long term groundwater monitoring was implemented in September 1996 with quarterly monitoring through 1998, followed by semi-annual monitoring beginning in 1999. The contingent groundwater remedy was not invoked at this site; the latest sampling performed in 2005 showed no results above groundwater standards. In September 2001, EPA finalized a Five Year Review for this site, which included a site walk-through inspection. The only deficiency noted during the Five Year Review was the lack of a comprehensive deed restriction, which has since been addressed. The Five Year Review concluded that the remedy is functioning as intended and is protective of human health and the environment. EPA, with the concurrence of the GEPD, has determined that all appropriate actions at the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site have been completed, and no further remedial action is necessary. Therefore, EPA is proposing deletion of the Site from the NPL. Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the Federal Register May 19, 2006. Dated: February 22, 2006. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E6-7928 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 414 [CMS-1317-P] RIN 0938-AO11 Medicare Program; Revisions to the Payment Policies of Ambulance Services Under the Fee Schedule for Ambulance Services AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to set forth changes to the fee schedule for payment of ambulance services by adopting revised geographic designations for urban and rural areas as set forth in Office of Management and Budget's
(OMB)Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) standard. We propose to remove the definition of Goldsmith modification and reference the most recent version of Goldsmith modification in the definition of rural area. In addition, we propose to add the definition of urban area as defined by OMB and revise our definitions of emergency response, rural area, and specialty care transport (SCT). We also propose to discontinue the annual review of the conversion factor
(CF)and of air ambulance rates. We would continue to monitor payment and billing data on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the CF and to air ambulance rates as appropriate to reflect any significant changes in these data. DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1317-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile
(FAX)transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please): 1. *Electronically* . You may submit electronic comments on specific issues in this proposed regulation to *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking* . Click on the link “Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an open comment period.” (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.) 2. *By regular mail* . You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1317-P, P.O. Box 8017, Baltimore, MD 21244-8017. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3. *By express or overnight mail* . You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1317-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. 4. *By hand or courier* . If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number
(410)786-7197 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. (Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.) Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Tayloe,
(410)786-4546. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Submitting Public Comments:* We welcome comments from the public on all issues set forth in this rule to assist us in fully considering issues and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS-1317-P and the specific “issue identifier” that precedes the section on which you choose to comment. *Inspection of Public Comments:* All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. CMS posts all comments received before the close of the comment period on its public Web site as soon as possible after they have been received. Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951. I. Background Under the ambulance fee schedule, the Medicare program pays for transportation services for Medicare beneficiaries when other means of transportation are contraindicated. Ambulance services are classified into different levels of ground (including water) and air ambulance services based on the medically necessary treatment provided during transport. These services include the following levels of service: • For Ground— ++ Basic Life Support
(BLS)++ Advanced Life Support, Level 1
(ALS1)++ Advanced Life Support, Level 2
(ALS2)++ Specialty Care Transport
(SCT)++ Paramedic ALS Intercept
(PI)• For Air— ++ Fixed Wing Air Ambulance
(FW)++ Rotary Wing Air Ambulance
(RW)A. History of Medicare Ambulance Services 1. Statutory Coverage of Ambulance Services Under sections 1834(l) and 1861(s)(7) of the Social Security Act (the Act), Medicare Part B (Supplemental Medical Insurance) covers and pays for ambulance services, to the extent prescribed in regulations, when the use of other methods of transportation would be contraindicated by the beneficiary's medical condition. The House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee Reports that accompanied the 1965 Social Security Amendments suggest that the Congress intended that— • The ambulance benefit cover transportation services only if other means of transportation are contraindicated by the beneficiary's medical condition; and • Only ambulance service to local facilities be covered unless necessary services are not available locally, in which case, transportation to the nearest facility furnishing those services is covered (H.R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 37 and Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. Pt 1, 43 (1965)). The reports indicate that transportation may also be provided from one hospital to another, to the beneficiary's home, or to an extended care facility. 2. Medicare Regulations for Ambulance Services Our regulations relating to ambulance services are set forth at 42 CFR part 410, subpart B and 42 CFR part 414, subpart H. Section 410.10(i) lists ambulance services as one of the covered medical and other health services under Medicare Part B. Therefore, ambulance services are subject to basic conditions and limitations set forth at § 410.12 and to specific conditions and limitations included at § 410.40. Part 414, subpart H, describes how payment is made for ambulance services covered by Medicare. The national fee schedule for ambulance services is being phased in over a 5-year transition period beginning April 1, 2002. (See § 414.615). In accordance with section 414 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003
(MMA)(Pub. L. 108-173), we added new § 414.617 which specifies that for ambulance services furnished during the period July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009, the ground ambulance base rate is subject to a floor amount, which is determined by establishing nine fee schedules based on each of the nine census divisions, and using the same methodology as was used to establish the national fee schedule. If the regional fee schedule methodology for a given census division results in an amount that is lower than or equal to the national ground base rate, then it is not used, and the national fee schedule amount applies for all providers and suppliers in the census division. If the regional fee schedule methodology for a given census division results in an amount that is greater than the national ground base rate, then the fee schedule portion of the base rate for that census division is equal to a blend of the national rate and the regional rate. For CY 2006, this blend would be 40 percent regional ground base rate and 60 percent national ground base rate. As of January 1, 2006, the total payment amount for air ambulance providers and suppliers will be based on 100 percent of the national ambulance fee schedule, while the total payment amount for ground ambulance providers and suppliers will be based on either 100 percent of the national ambulance fee schedule or 60 percent of the national ambulance fee schedule and 40 percent of the regional ambulance fee schedule. II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule In this proposed rule, we would set forth changes to the fee schedule for payment of ambulance services by adopting revised geographic designations for urban and rural areas as set forth in OMB's Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) standard. We propose to remove the definition of Goldsmith modification and reference the most recent version of Goldsmith modification in the definition of rural area. In addition, we propose to add the definition of urban area already defined by OMB. We are also proposing to revise the definition of specialty care transport
(SCT)to clarify that a hospital is the only appropriate origin and destination point for this level of care. In addition, we are proposing to discontinue our annual review of the CF and of air ambulance rates because we have not identified any significant differences from those assumptions in the 4 years since the implementation of the fee schedule. We would continue to monitor payment and billing data on an ongoing basis and make adjustments to the CF and to air ambulance rates as appropriate to reflect any significant changes in these data. Finally, we are proposing to revise our current definition of emergency response to specify the conditions that warrant payment for immediate response. A. Adoption of New Geographic Standards for the Ambulance Fee Schedule Historically, the Medicare ambulance fee schedule has used the same geographic area designations as the acute care hospital inpatient prospective payment system
(IPPS)and other Medicare payment systems to take into account appropriate urban and rural differences. While this promotes consistency across the Medicare program, it also provides a consistent and objective national definition for payment purposes and utilizes geographic area designations that more realistically reflect rural and urban populations, resulting in more accurate payments for ambulance services. As a result, we are proposing to adopt OMB's CBSA-based geographic area designations to more accurately identify urban and rural areas for ambulance fee schedule payment purposes. We also propose to update the Goldsmith standard, consistent with the provisions of section 1834(l), to more accurately determine rural census tracts within metropolitan areas. These changes would affect whether certain areas are recognized as rural or urban. The distinction between urban and rural is important for ambulance payment purposes because ambulance payments are based on the point of pick-up for the transport, and the point of pick-up for urban and rural transport is paid differently. Of particular significance to the ambulance fee schedule, the changes would affect whether or not certain areas are eligible for certain rural bonus payments under the ambulance fee schedule. For example, the changes would affect whether or not certain areas are recognized as what we refer to as “Super Rural Bonus” areas established by section 414(c) of the MMA and set forth in section 1834(l)(12) of the Act. That section specifies that, for services furnished during the period July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2009, the payment amount for the ground ambulance base rate is increased by a “percent increase” (Super Rural Bonus) where the ambulance transport originates in a rural area (which includes Goldsmith areas) that we determine to be in the lowest 25th percentile of all rural populations arrayed by population density. 1. Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)—Revised Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Metropolitan Area Definitions [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “CBSAs-REVISED OMB METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINITIONS” at the beginning of your comments.] In the February 27, 2002 final rule (67 FR 9100), we stated that we could not easily adopt and implement, within the timeframe necessary to implement the fee schedule, a methodology for recognizing geographic population density disparities other than MSA/nonMSA. We also stated that we would consider alternative methodologies that may more appropriately address payment to isolated, low-volume rural ambulance providers and suppliers at a later date. The application of any rural adjustment is determined by the geographic location of the beneficiary at the time he or she is placed on board the ambulance. We are now proposing to adopt OMB's revised geographic area designations for urban and rural areas to address payment to those isolated, low-volume rural providers and suppliers. Prior to the 2000 decennial census, geographic areas were consistently defined by OMB as Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs)with an MSA being defined as an urban area and anything outside an MSA being defined as a rural area. In addition, for purposes of ambulance policy, we recognized the 1990 update of Goldsmith areas (generally, rural census tracts within counties that covered large tracts of land with one predominant urban area only) as rural areas (65 FR 55077 through 55100). In the fall of 1998, OMB chartered the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee to examine the Metropolitan Area
(MA)standards and develop recommendations for possible changes to those standards. Three notices related to the review of the standards were published on the following dates in the **Federal Register** , providing an opportunity for public comment on the recommendations of the Committee: December 21, 1998 (63 FR 70525 through 70561); October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56627 through 56644); and August 22, 2000 (65 FR 51059 through 51077). In the December 27, 2000, **Federal Register** (65 FR 82227 through 82238), OMB announced its new standards. In that notice, OMB defines a CBSA, beginning in 2003, as “a geographic entity associated with at least one core of 10,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.” CBSAs are conceptually areas that contain a recognized population nucleus and adjacent communities that have a high degree of integration with that nucleus. The purpose of the new OMB standards is to provide nationally consistent definitions for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics for a set of geographic areas. The OMB standards designate and define two categories of CBSAs—Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(MSAs)and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. (65 FR 82227 through 82238) According to OMB, MSAs are based on urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (referred to in this discussion as Micropolitan Areas) are based on urban clusters of at least 10,000 population but less than 50,000 population. Counties that do not fall within CBSAs are deemed “Outside CBSAs.” Under the ambulance fee schedule, MSAs would continue to be recognized as urban areas and all other areas outside MSAs (including Micropolitan areas, areas “outside CBSAs”, and areas that meet the updated definition of the Goldsmith Modification) would be recognized as rural areas. As noted previously, these designations are important because under the ambulance fee schedule, Medicare transports are designated either urban or rural based on the pick-up point of the transport. The new OMB definitions recognize 49 new MSAs and 565 new Micropolitan Areas, and extensively revise the composition of many of the existing MSAs. There are 1,090 counties in MSAs under the new definitions (previously, there were 848 counties in MSAs). Of these 1,090 counties, 737 are in the same MSA as they were prior to the changes, 65 are in a different MSA, and 288 were not previously designated to any MSA. There are 674 counties in Micropolitan Areas. Of these, 41 were previously in an MSA, while 633 were not previously designated to an MSA. There are five counties that previously were designated to an MSA, but are no longer designated to either an MSA or a new Micropolitan Area (Carter County, Kentucky; St. James Parish, Louisiana; Kane County, Utah; Culpepper County, Virginia; and King George County, Virginia). The adoption of CBSA-based geographic area designations would mean that ambulance providers and suppliers that pick up Medicare beneficiaries in areas that would be outside of MSAs (but are currently within MSA areas) may experience increases in payment, while those ambulance providers and suppliers that pick up Medicare beneficiaries in areas that would be within MSA areas (but are currently outside of MSAs) may experience decreases in payment. The use of updated geographical areas would mean the recognition of new urban and rural boundaries based on the population migration that occurred over a 10-year period, between 1990 and 2000. In general, it is expected that ambulance providers and suppliers in 22 States may experience payment increases and ambulance providers and suppliers in 40 States may experience payment decreases as a result of population shifts recognized by OMB's CBSA-based geographic area designations. We believe that updating the MSA definition to conform with OMB's CBSA-based geographic area designations, coupled with updating the Goldsmith Modification (that is, using the current Rural Urban Commuting Areas version, as discussed in Section 2 of this proposed rule), would more accurately reflect the contemporary urban and rural nature of areas across the country for ambulance payment purposes and cause ambulance fee schedule payments to become more accurate. As of October 1, 2004, the IPPS adopted OMB's revised metropolitan area definitions to identify “urban areas” for payment purposes. Under the IPPS, MSAs are considered urban areas and Micropolitan Areas and areas “Outside CBSAs” are considered rural areas (§ 412.64(b). We are proposing to adopt similar CBSA-based designations of “urban area” and “rural area” under the ambulance fee schedule for the reasons discussed. Therefore, we propose to revise § 414.605 to include a definition of urban area and to reflect OMB's revised CBSA-based geographic area designations in our definition of rural area. 2. Updated Goldsmith Modification—Rural Urban Commuting Areas (RUCAs) [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “RUCAs” at the beginning of your comments.] The Goldsmith Modification evolved from an outreach grant program sponsored by the Office of Rural Health Policy of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). This program was created to establish an operational definition of rural populations lacking easy access to health services in Large Area Metropolitan Counties (LAMCs). Dr. Harold F. Goldsmith and his associates created a methodology for identifying rural census tracts located within a large metropolitan county of at least 1,225 square miles. Using a combination of data on population density and commuting patterns, census tracts were identified as being so isolated by distance or physical features that they were more rural than urban in character. The original Goldsmith Modification was developed using data from the 1980 census. In order to more accurately reflect current demographic and geographic characteristics of the nation, HRSA's Office of Rural Health Policy, in partnership with the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service and the University of Washington, developed an update to the Goldsmith modification designated as Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs) (69 FR 47518 through 47519). Rather than being limited to LAMCs, RUCAs use urbanization, population density, and daily commuting data to categorize every census tract in the country. RUCAs are used to identify rural census tracts in all metropolitan counties. Section 1834(l) of the Act requires that we include the most recent modification of the Goldsmith Modification to determine rural census tracts within MSAs. Therefore, we propose to remove the definition of “Goldsmith modification” at § 414.605 and incorporate a reference to the most current version of the Goldsmith modification in the definition of “rural area.” B. Specialty Care Transport
(SCT)[If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “SPECIALTY CARE TRANSPORT” at the beginning of your comments.] On February 27, 2002, we published a final rule with comment period in the **Federal Register** (67 FR 9100) entitled “Fee Schedule for Payment of Ambulance Services and Revisions to the Physician Certification Requirements for Coverage of Nonemergency Ambulance Services” that implemented the ambulance fee schedule. In that final rule, we defined SCT in § 414.605 as the “interfacility transportation of a critically injured or ill beneficiary by a ground ambulance vehicle, including medically necessary supplies and services, at a level of service beyond the scope of the EMT [(Emergency Medical Technician)]—Paramedic. SCT is necessary when a beneficiary's condition requires ongoing care that must be furnished by one or more health professionals in an appropriate specialty area, for example, nursing, emergency medicine, respiratory care, cardiovascular care, or a paramedic with additional training.” Additionally, ambulance vehicle staff are to be certified as emergency medical technicians and legally authorized to operate all lifesaving and life-sustaining equipment that are on board the vehicle. (§ 410.41(b)(1)) Typically, a SCT level of care occurs when the patient, who is already receiving a high level of care in the transferring acute care hospital, requires a level of care that the transferring hospital is not able to provide. We implemented the SCT level of payment for hospital-to-hospital ground ambulance transports upon implementation of the ambulance fee schedule on April 1, 2002 and we defined SCT at § 414.605. The definition of SCT in § 414.605 refers to “interfacility transportation.” We based our payment for SCT-level ground ambulance transports on hospital-to-hospital ambulance transportation data. As we stated in the preamble to the February 27, 2002 final rule (67 FR 9100), the SCT level of care includes the situation where a beneficiary is taken by ground ambulance from the hospital to an air ambulance and then from the air ambulance to the final destination hospital. Also, we stated in the preamble for both the September 12, 2000 (65 FR 55077) proposed rule and the February 27, 2002 (67 FR 9108) final rule, that SCT is a level of interhospital service. However, transfer to or from a type of facility other than a hospital (for example, skilled nursing facility or nursing home) is not SCT. Subsequent to the implementation of the ambulance fee schedule, we clarified our definition of SCT as hospital-to-hospital transport in a Program Memorandum to Medicare contractors, which was issued on September 27, 2002. (Program Memorandum Intermediaries/Carriers, Transmittal AB-02-130—Change Request 2295, September 27, 2002) That document and subsequent questions and answers related to the definition of SCT were made available to the public on the CMS Medicare ambulance policy Web site. In addition, we clarified our definition of SCT in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 10-Ambulance Services, in which we stated that SCT is regarded as a highly-skilled level of care of a critically injured or ill patient during transfer from one hospital to another. We have also clarified our policy in Ambulance Open Door Forums, conference calls, and oral and paper communication written in response to questions posed by individuals and groups representing the ambulance industry. Despite our previous attempts to clarify the scope of SCT transport we nonetheless continue to receive questions. For this reason, we are proposing to revise the definition of “specialty care transport” at § 414.605 to read “hospital-to-hospital” transport as opposed to “interfacility” transportation. We believe this change would make it absolutely clear that a hospital is the only appropriate origin and destination point for the SCT level of care. Since this clarification would only conform the regulation text to our current policy on this issue, there would be no change in policy; there would be no additional cost to the Medicare program, its contractors or ambulance providers and suppliers. C. Recalibration of the Ambulance Fee Schedule Conversion Factor [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “RECALIBRATION OF THE AMBULANCE FEE SCHEDULE” at the beginning of your comments.] In the February 27, 2002 final rule with comment period, (67 FR 9102 and 9103), we indicated that we would adjust the conversion factor
(CF)if actual experience under the fee schedule was significantly different from the assumptions used to determine the initial CF and air ambulance rates. We said specifically that we would monitor payment data and evaluate whether the assumptions used were accurate. We have continued to review our assumptions annually to determine whether or not a conversion factor adjustment is warranted. We examined the effects of the relative volumes of the different levels of ambulance services (service mix) and the extent of low billing charges to determine whether we should adjust the CF to reflect actual practices. In the 4 years since the implementation of the ambulance fee schedule, no significant differences from our original assumptions have emerged. We have observed only insignificant differences, and, to date, no adjustments in any one year have been warranted. It is for this reason, we believe it is appropriate to discontinue our annual review of the original conversion factor assumptions. We also believe that the formal annual review of air ambulance rates should be discontinued as we propose to monitor all ambulance rates and make adjustments on an “as-needed” basis. We would continue to monitor payment and billing data on an ongoing basis and, if actual practices under the fee schedule differ significantly from any of our assumptions, we would adjust the CF and air ambulance rate appropriately. The ambulance industry has available multiple venues for notifying CMS of potential issues. These are the ambulance fee schedule open door forums, and telephone calls to CMS-designated personnel. As an additional safeguard, CMS generally conducts a review of ambulance data each year in preparation for issuing the Ambulance Inflation Factor (AIF). Therefore, we propose to revise the annual review requirement at § 414.610(g) to indicate that we will adjust the CF and air ambulance rates when appropriate to take into account actual practices under the fee schedule when these differ significantly from assumptions we use to calculate the CF and air ambulance rates. D. Hospital-to-Hospital Ambulance Service—Emergency Response [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “EMERGENCY RESPONSE” at the beginning of your comments.] In § 414.605, we define “emergency response” of an ambulance service to mean “responding immediately at the BLS [(Basic Life Support)] or ALS1 [(Advanced Life Support Level 1)] level of service to a 911 call or the equivalent in areas without a 911 call system. An immediate response is one in which the ambulance entity begins as quickly as possible to take the steps necessary to respond to the call.” In our February 27, 2002 final rule (67 FR 9100) defining “emergency response”, we stated that the additional payment for emergency response is for the additional overhead cost of maintaining the resources required to respond immediately to a call and not for the cost of furnishing a certain level of service to the beneficiary. The current “emergency response” definition has created confusion for those transports that originate at a hospital emergency department and the ambulance is transporting the beneficiary to an emergency department at another hospital for either admittance or treatment. For example, in most of these cases, the beneficiary must be stabilized prior to the transport. Therefore, the need to maintain a state of readiness to respond immediately to an urgent call, warranting a higher emergency response payment, does not appear to be applicable to these situations. Another example occurs when the ambulance is owned by the originating hospital. We stated in a Program Memorandum to the Medicare contractors (Transmittal AB-02-130, Change Request 2295, September 27, 2002) that upon receipt of a call for ambulance services, the dispatcher makes the determination of whether the call constitutes an “emergency response”. When the ambulance service is already readily available at the originating hospital, an emergency call may not be necessary, much less through a dispatcher for a 911 service. While we recognize that there may be instances when an emergency response payment is warranted for a transport between two hospital emergency departments, we believe that payment based on readiness to respond immediately is not justified 100 percent of the time. For this reason, we believe our current definition of “emergency response” needs to be revised to reflect only circumstances where payment for immediate response is truly warranted. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the definition of “emergency response” as follows: “Emergency response” means that an ambulance entity— • Maintains readiness to respond to urgent calls at the BLS or ALS1 level of service; and • Responds immediately at the BLS or ALS1 level of service to 911 calls, the equivalent in areas without a 911 call system or radio calls within a hospital system when the ambulance entity is owned and operated by the hospital. III. Collection of Information Requirements This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. IV. Response to Comments Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on **Federal Register** documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document. V. Regulatory Impact [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “REGULATORY IMPACT” at the beginning of your comments.] A. Overall Impact We have examined the impacts of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis
(RIA)must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). Using CY 2004 data, we estimate that any urban to rural population shifts reflected in the new proposed geographic designations could potentially result in an initial decrease in Medicare payments for all ambulance providers and suppliers of approximately $4.6 million. However, this estimate assumes that the same number of ambulance trips would originate from the same pick-up points as were reported in CY 2004, an unlikely scenario where urban and rural populations are shifting. We expect the initial change in geographic designations to have little, if any, overall effect on ambulance payments (See Section B, Anticipated Effects). This proposed rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule. The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to 29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds and is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area or in a rural census tract within a Metropolitan Statistical Area as determined under the most recent version of the Goldsmith modification. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals since small rural hospitals generally do not own and operate ambulance services. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold level is currently approximately $120 million. This rule will have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector. Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable. B. Anticipated Effects As noted in Section A, Overall Impact, we estimate, using CY 2004 data, that adopting CBSA-based urban and rural designations could potentially result in an initial decrease in Medicare payments for ambulance providers and suppliers of approximately $4.6 million. However, we believe this is not likely to be the case. Rather, we believe that the overall effect of adopting the CBSA-based geographic definitions would result in a redistribution of payments from urban to rural areas in some States and from rural to urban areas in other States. As noted in Section A, in using CY 2004 data, we held the number and length of ambulance trips and the pick-up points constant in order to isolate the effect of the adoption of CBSA-based geographic areas. We believe this constant, for all practical purposes, is not likely to occur. We contend that with the use of updated geographical areas where rural areas are redesignated as urban areas, it will be more likely than not, that some level of population growth has occurred resulting in more ambulance trips overall than had occurred in CY 2004, even though these trips are paid at a lower rate per trip (areas designated as rural generally receive a higher payment per trip than areas designated as urban). In contrast, where urban areas are redesignated as rural, there will be fewer trips than was reported in CY 2004, but at higher rates. Thus, although ambulance suppliers and providers may bill fewer rural trips at the higher rate or more urban trips at the lower rate, we anticipate that the overall payments will remain the same. For these reasons, we estimate that this proposed rule will have no fiscal impact on the Medicare program because payments will, in effect, be redistributed. C. Conclusion For these reasons, we are not preparing analyses for either the RFA or section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects 42 CFR Part 414 Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health professions, Kidney diseases, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV as follows: PART 414—PAYMENT FOR PART B MEDICAL AND OTHER HEALTH SERVICES 1. The authority citation for Part 414 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1102, 1871, and 1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, and 1395m(l)). Subpart H—Fee Schedule for Ambulance Services 2. Section 414.605 is amended by— A. Removing the definition of “Goldsmith modification.” B. Revising the definitions of “emergency response,” “rural area,” and “specialty care transport (SCT).” C. Adding the definition of “urban area” in alphabetical order. The revisions and addition read as follows: § 414.605 Definitions. *Emergency response* means that an ambulance entity—
(1)Maintains readiness to respond to urgent calls at the BLS or ALS1 level of service; and
(2)Responds immediately at the BLS or ALS1 level of service to 911 calls, the equivalent in areas without a 911 call system or radio calls within a hospital system when the ambulance entity is owned and operated by the hospital. *Rural area* means an area located outside an urban area, or a rural census tract within a Metropolitan Statistical Area as determined under the most recent version of the Goldsmith modification as determined by the Office of Rural Health Policy of the Health Resources and Services Administration. *Specialty care transport (SCT)* means the hospital-to-hospital transportation of a critically injured or ill beneficiary by a ground ambulance vehicle, including medically necessary supplies and services, at a level of service beyond the scope of the EMT-Paramedic. SCT is necessary when a beneficiary's condition requires ongoing care that must be furnished by one or more health professionals in an appropriate specialty area, for example, nursing, emergency medicine, respiratory care, cardiovascular care, or a paramedic with additional training. *Urban area* means a Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the Executive Office of Management and Budget. 3. Section 414.610, paragraph
(g)is revised to read as follows: § 414.610 Basis of payment.
(g)*Adjustments* . The Secretary monitors payment and billing data on an ongoing basis and adjusts the CF and air ambulance rates as appropriate to reflect actual practices under the fee schedule which are significantly different from assumptions used to calculate the CF and air ambulance rates. These rates are not adjusted solely because of changes in the total number of ambulance transports. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance Program) (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) Editorial Note: This was received in the Office of the Federal Register on May 19, 2006. Dated: December 7, 2005. Mark B. McClellan, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: February 28, 2006. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-7929 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P 71 102 Friday, May 26, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. FV06-983-1NC] Notice of Request for Extension and Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's
(AMS)intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for pistachios grown in California, Marketing Order No. 983. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 25, 2006. *Additional Information or Comments:* Contact Valerie L. Emmer-Scott, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
(202)205-2829, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or e-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* . Small businesses may request information on this notice by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or e-mail: J *ay.Guerber@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Pistachios Grown in California, Marketing Order No. 983. *OMB Number:* 0581-0215. *Expiration Date of Approval:* December 31, 2006. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Marketing order programs provide an opportunity for producers of fresh fruits, vegetables and specialty crops, in a specified production area, to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually. Order regulations help ensure adequate supplies of high quality product and adequate returns to producers. Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) industries enter into marketing order programs. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to oversee the order operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee of representatives from each commodity industry. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the AMAA, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the program, which has operated since 2004. The pistachio marketing order regulates the handling of pistachios grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the order, (7 CFR part 983). The order authorizes grade and size requirements, as well as a requirement for aflatoxin testing on domestic shipments only. The order, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, authorize the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee) the agency responsible for local administration of the order, to require handlers and producers to submit certain information. Much of this information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the industry to assist in carrying out marketing decisions. The Committee has developed forms as a means for persons to file required information with the Committee relating to pistachio shipments and other information needed to effectively carry out the requirements of the order, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the AMAA. A USDA form is used to allow growers to vote on amendments or continuance of the marketing order. In addition, pistachio producers and handlers who are nominated by their peers to serve as representatives on the Committee must file nomination forms with the Secretary. Formal rulemaking amendments to the order must be approved in referenda conducted by the Secretary. Also, the Secretary may conduct a continuance referendum to determine industry support for continuation of the order. Handlers are asked to sign an agreement to indicate their willingness to abide by the provisions of the order whenever the order is amended. These forms are included in this request. The forms covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the order, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the AMAA as expressed in the order, and the rules and regulations issued under the order. The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs regional and headquarter's staff, and authorized employees of the Committee. Authorized Committee employees and the industry are the primary users of the information, and AMS is the secondary user. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .2309 hours per response. *Respondents:* Pistachio producers, handlers and testing laboratories. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 771. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* .808 *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 144 hours. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of the information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-0215 and the Marketing Order for Pistachios Grown in California, M.O. No. 983, and be mailed to Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Tel:
(202)720-2491, Fax
(202)720-8938; or e-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* . Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular USDA business hours at 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC, room 2525-S. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Dated: May 22, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-8104 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket Number FV-06-307] United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising official grade standards, is soliciting comments on the possible revisions of the United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms. At a meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result, AMS has identified the United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms for possible revision. AMS is considering proposed revisions that would allow the standards to be used for open veil types of mushrooms, include small, medium, and large size classifications for open veil types of mushrooms; revise the current size classifications (small to medium and large) as well as an addition of a button and jumbo size for the closed veil types of mushrooms; and eliminate the unclassified category. AMS is seeking comments regarding these changes as well as any other revisions that may be necessary to better serve the industry. DATES: Comments must be received by July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871, e-mail *FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov.* Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms are available either at the above address or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call
(202)720-2185; E-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA/AMS/Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is considering revisions to the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised on July 15, 1966. Background At a meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. AMS has identified the United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms for possible revision. Prior to undertaking detailed work to develop the proposed revisions to the standards, AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed revisions and any other comments on the United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms to better serve the industry. AMS is considering revising the requirement to be free from open veils to read “Additionally, closed veil types shall be free from open veils.” AMS is also considering revising the definition of mature to read “Mature means that the mushroom is firm and well developed; for closed veil types the veil area may be stretched but not broken.” Unlike the current standards, these proposed revisions would allow the standards to be used for open veil types of mushrooms. Additionally, AMS is considering revising the size section from its current classifications of small to medium (up to 1 5/8 inches in diameter) and large (over 1 5/8 inches in diameter) to incorporate current size classifications being used by industry for closed veil types of mushrooms, and add size classifications for open veil types of mushrooms. The size classifications for closed veil types of mushrooms would be: Button mushrooms shall be less than 1 1/4 inches in diameter, medium mushrooms shall be 1 1/4 inches to less than 2 inches in diameter, large mushrooms shall be 2 inches to less than 2 3/4 inches in diameter, and jumbo mushrooms shall be 2 3/4 inches in diameter and larger. The proposed size classifications for open veil types of mushrooms are: Small mushrooms shall be less than 3 inches in diameter, medium mushrooms shall be 3 inches to less than 4 inches in diameter, and large mushrooms shall be 4 inches in diameter and larger. AMS also would eliminate the unclassified category. This section is being removed in all standards, when they are revised. This category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary. These revisions would bring the standards for mushrooms in line with current marketing practices, thereby improving the usefulness in serving the industry. This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Mushrooms. Should AMS conclude that revisions are needed, it will develop a proposed revised standard that will be published in the ** Federal Register ** with a request for comments in accordance with 7 CFR part 36. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: May 22, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-8102 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. FV-06-309] United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is soliciting comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine. The proposed standards would provide industry with a common language and uniform basis for trading, thus promoting the orderly and efficient marketing of tomatoes on the vine (TOV). DATES: Comments must be received by July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax
(202)720-8871, e-mail *FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov.* Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The proposed United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine are available either from the above address or the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call
(202)720-2185; e-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Pograms. AMS is proposing to establish voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Background AMS published a notice in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 68859) on December 10, 2003, soliciting comments on the possible revision of the United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes. Based on comments received, AMS has determined that there is a need for a separate standard specifically for TOV. The proposed standards for TOV would establish the following grades as well as a tolerance for each grade: U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2. In addition, “Application of Tolerances” and “Size Classifications” sections would be established. This proposal also defines “Damage,” “Serious Damage,” specific basic requirements, and other defects. The proposed TOV standards would provide a common language for trade and a means of measuring value in the marketing of this commodity. The official grade of a lot of TOV covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Products. (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). This notice provides a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: May 22, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-8103 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Britannia Mills Ltd, New York, NY, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/730,208, “Methods of Improving Shrink-Resistance of Natural Fibers, Synthetic Fibers, or Mixtures Thereof, or Fabric or Yarn Composed of Natural Fibers, Synthetic Fibers, or Mixtures Thereof”, filed on December 8, 2003. DATES: Comments must be received within thirty
(30)calendar days of the date of publication of this Notice in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Britannia Mills Ltd, New York, has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty
(30)days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Martha Bair Steinbock, Deputy Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-8159 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0057] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Tuberculosis Testing of Imported Cattle AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for tuberculosis testing of imported cattle. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0057 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0057, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0057. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding regulations for tuberculosis testing of imported animals, contact Dr. Michael Dutcher, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Tuberculosis Eradication Program, Eradication and Surveillance Team, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-5467. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Tuberculosis Testing of Imported Cattle. *OMB Number:* 0579-0224. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is authorized under the Animal Health Protection Act to prohibit or restrict the importation of animals to prevent the introduction of livestock diseases into the United States. Regulations concerning the importation of animals are contained in 9 CFR part 93. Subpart D of part 93 pertains to the importation of ruminants, including cattle. The regulations in subpart D include requirements to ensure that cattle imported into the United States are free of bovine tuberculosis. Among other things, subpart D requires an import permit for cattle from Mexico and certain other countries, and requires that the application for the import permit list the specific location of all premises that the cattle to be imported have been on. Additionally, subpart D requires certification regarding the tuberculosis history of the herds from which a group of cattle is assembled for export to the United States. This information is necessary to allow APHIS to ensure that the cattle to be imported are free of tuberculosis, thereby protecting the health of U.S. livestock. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2.0 hours per response. *Respondents:* Officials of the national government of the region from which the cattle originate and salaried veterinary officials of exporting regions. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 300. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 75. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 7,500. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 15,000 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2006. Elizabeth E. Gaston, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-8139 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0063] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Swine 2006 Study AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: New information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to initiate a new information collection activity to support the National Animal Health Monitoring System's national Swine 2006 Study. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0063 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0063, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0063. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Swine 2006 Study, contact Mr. Chris Quatrano, Management and Program Analyst, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B MS 2E6, Fort Collins, CO 80526;
(970)494-7207. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* National Animal Health Monitoring System; Swine 2006 Study. *OMB Number:* 0579-XXXX. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to protect the health of our Nation's livestock and poultry populations by preventing the introduction and interstate spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock and for eradicating such diseases from the United States when feasible. In connection with this mission, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) operates the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), which collects, on a national basis, statistically valid and scientifically sound data on the prevalence and economic importance of livestock and poultry diseases and associated risk factors. NAHMS' national studies have evolved into a collaborative industry and government initiative to help determine the most effective means of preventing and controlling diseases of livestock. APHIS is the only agency responsible for collecting national data on livestock health. Participation in any NAHMS study is voluntary, and all data are confidential. The Swine 2006 Study is part of an ongoing series of NAHMS studies on the U.S. swine population. The first NAHMS swine study was performed in 1990. This study, the National Swine Survey, was the first statistically valid, national on-farm data collection by NAHMS. Eighty-one percent of the U.S. swine herd was represented in that study. Subsequent studies on the U.S. swine industry were performed in 1995 and 2000. NAHMS will initiate the study, consisting of two components: A large-enterprise survey and a small-enterprise survey. The large-enterprise component will collect information representing a large proportion of the U.S. swine industry. The study will be conducted via personal interview on farms with 100 or more head of swine in 17 States. The States include: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin. This 17-State target sample of 5,000 farms represents 94 percent of the U.S. swine inventory on farms with 100 or more hogs, as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The farms will be surveyed to collect information to meet the following objectives: Determine trends in swine management practices related to inventories, housing practices, disease prevention, and mortality for four levels of production: Gestation, farrowing, nursery, and grow/finish. Determine the prevalence of and risk factors for respiratory, neurologic, gastrointestinal and systemic pathogens found in nursery and grow/finish aged pigs and examine vaccine and antibiotic usage by pork producers to control diseases and production parameters. Determine the prevalence of nonambulatory conditions and risk factors causing swine to be nonambulatory. Identify production practices adopted by producers to reduce nutrient content in manure and to describe current manure and nutrient management systems used on operations. Determine changes in management practices affecting pork safety and animal health in swine operations from 1990, 1995, and 2000, to 2006. APHIS will use the information collected in the large-enterprise component to examine trends in swine health management relating to management practices, infection control, and antimicrobial usage. The small-enterprise component of the study will be conducted via mail survey with a telephone follow-up for non-respondents. The 4,000 producer sample will primarily contain farms with 1-99 head of swine in 31 States. The States include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. States were selected based on risk factors for classical swine fever and pseudorabies. While these States represent a very high proportion of the swine industry, information collected will represent a fraction (mostly operations with 1-99 head of swine) of the total inventory in these States. This 31-State target sample of 4,000 small-enterprise farms will be surveyed to collect information to meet the following objectives: Determine swine health management practices related to disease prevention and mortality. Determine biosecurity practices in use. Characterize small enterprise production practices. APHIS will use the information collected in the small-enterprise component to describe health, biosecurity, and animal movement practices, and enhance the surveillance programs for classical swine fever and pseudorabies. APHIS will use the information collected from both components of the Swine 2006 Study to prepare descriptive reports and information sheets that will be disseminated to animal health officials, swine producers, stakeholders, and academia. We are asking OMB to approve our use of this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.0192041 hours per response. *Respondents:* Swine producers in 31 States. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 5,803. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 2.1176977. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 12,289. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 12,525 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2006. Elizabeth E. Gaston, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-8140 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0071] Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Beetle Busters Survey; Asian Longhorned Beetle Cooperative Eradication Program AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: New information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to initiate a new information collection activity, titled Beetle Busters Survey, associated with the Asian longhorned beetle cooperative eradication program. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0071 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0071, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0071. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Beetle Busters Survey, contact Ms. Meghan K. Thomas, Deputy Director, Public Affairs, LPA, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 51, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-3266. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Beetle Busters Survey; Asian Longhorned Beetle Cooperative Eradication Program. *OMB Number:* 0579-XXXX. *Type of Request:* Approval of a new information collection. *Abstract:* The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, *Anoplophora glabripennis* ), an insect native to China, Japan, Korea, and the Isle of Hainan, is a destructive pest of hardwood trees. It attacks many healthy hardwood trees, including maple, horse chestnut, birch, poplar, willow, and elm. The beetle bores into the heartwood of a host tree, eventually killing the tree. Immature beetles bore into tree trunks and branches, causing heavy sap flow from wounds and sawdust accumulation at tree bases. They feed on, and over-winter in, the interiors of trees. Adult beetles emerge in the spring and summer months from round holes approximately three-eighths of an inch in diameter (about the size of a dime) that they bore through branches and trunks of trees. After emerging, adult beetles feed for 2 to 3 days and then mate. Adult females then lay eggs in oviposition sites that they make on the branches of trees. A new generation of ALB is produced each year. If this pest moves into the hardwood forests of the United States, the nursery, maple syrup, and forest product industries could experience severe economic losses. In addition, urban and forest ALB infestations will result in environmental damage, aesthetic deterioration, and a reduction in public enjoyment of recreational spaces. If the ALB were to become established in North America, approximately 1.2 billion trees would be at risk of being infested, resulting in potential losses of up to $669 billion. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has administered an ALB Cooperative Eradication Program (the program) since 1996 to eradicate this destructive pest from the United States. Areas found to be infested are quarantined, and the movement of host material from the area is restricted to prevent the spread of the ALB. Infested host material is removed or treated. Successful eradication efforts have resulted in a number of infested areas being removed from quarantine, and, over the years, the program has made steady progress. However, the ALB continues to be a serious threat, and APHIS believes that public support is crucial to eradication efforts. In this regard, APHIS plans to enlist the public's assistance in reporting the presence or absence of the ALB in their local areas. APHIS would invite members of the public to report the results of any surveys they conduct using a simple on-line form on the Internet to record sightings and nonsightings. Such reports of surveys for the ALB conducted by members of the general public, nature organizations, school groups, garden clubs, and others would help APHIS develop a history of the ALB's presence and activity in particular areas and supplement the work done by the program's surveyors. If the public reports signs of the ALB, APHIS would take appropriate steps to determine whether the ALB is indeed present in the area and to what extent. In turn, negative reports would help APHIS affirm the absence of ALB in a particular area and facilitate progress towards deregulation of the area. APHIS is asking the Office of Management and Budget for approval of this information collection activity in support of ALB eradication for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.083 hours per response. *Respondents:* General public, nature organizations, school groups, and garden clubs. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 5,000. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 5,000. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 415 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2006. Elizabeth E. Gaston, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-8141 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0062] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Plant Pest, Noxious Weed, and Garbage Regulations AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with plant pest, noxious weed, and garbage regulations. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0062 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0062, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0062. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding plant pest, noxious weed, and garbage regulations, contact Mr. Robert Flanders, Branch Chief, Permits, Registration and Imports, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 33, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-5930. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Plant Pest, Noxious Weed, and Garbage Regulations. *OMB Number:* 0579-0054. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is authorized, among other things, to prohibit the importation and interstate movement of plants, animals, plant and animal products, noxious weeds, and other articles to prevent the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of plant and animal pests and diseases and noxious weeds. In connection with this mission, APHIS regulates the importation and interstate movement of plant pests, noxious weeds, and waste material derived from plant or animal matter (commonly referred to as garbage) under 7 CFR parts 330 and 360 and 9 CFR part 94. These regulations contain information collection requirements, including requirements to apply for permits to import regulated articles ( *e.g.* , plant pests, noxious weeds, or soil) or to move regulated articles interstate, requirements for facilities to be approved by APHIS to dispose of regulated garbage, and requirements for any person engaged in the business of handling or disposing of regulated garbage to first enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS. These requirements are necessary to ensure that importation and interstate movement of regulated articles, and disposal of regulated garbage, occur under appropriate conditions to prevent the dissemination of plant and animal pests and diseases and noxious weeds. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.7172025 hours per response. *Respondents:* Importers and shippers of plant pests, noxious weeds, and other regulated articles; State plant health authorities; owners/operators of regulated garbage-handling facilities. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 56,940. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 1.26185. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 71,850. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 51,531 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2006. Elizabeth E. Gaston, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-8152 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0058] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Recognition of Animal Disease Status of Regions in the European Union AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with regulations for importation of breeding swine, pork and pork products, and swine semen from a specified region of the European Union. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 25, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0058 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0058, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0058. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding regulations for recognition of animal disease status of regions in the European Union, contact Dr. Gary Colgrove, Director, Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301)734-4357. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Recognition of Animal Disease Status of Regions in the European Union. *OMB Number:* 0579-0218. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA or the Department) regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases not currently present or prevalent in this country. The regulations pertaining to the importation of animals and animal products are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 9, chapter I, subchapter D (9 CFR parts 91 through 99). Under 9 CFR 94.24 and 98.38, importers of breeding swine, pork and pork products, and swine semen from the region in the European Union that we recognize as one in which classical swine fever is not known to exist are required to include origin and movement certification with the imported commodity. Additionally, importers of breeding swine or swine semen must include the results of tests conducted on the imported swine or donor boars. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. *Respondents:* Importers of breeding swine, pork and pork products, and swine semen, officials of the national government for the region of origin, and salaried veterinary officers of the national government of the country of origin. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 30. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 10. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 300. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 300 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2006. Elizabeth E. Gaston, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-8155 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Domestic Sugar Program—2005-Crop Cane Sugar and Sugar Beet Marketing Allotments and Company Allocations AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the establishment and adjustments to the sugar overall allotment quantity
(OAQ)for the 2005-crop year (FY 2006) which runs from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006. Although CCC already announced all of the information in this notice, CCC is statutorily required to publish in the **Federal Register** determinations establishing or adjusting sugar marketing allotments. CCC set the 2005-crop OAQ to 8.600 million short tons raw value
(STRV)on August 12, 2005. On August 19, 2005, CCC allocated the cane sector allotment to cane-producing States and cane processors and reassigned an expected cane supply shortfall of 120,000 STRV to imports. On September 29, 2005, CCC increased the OAQ to 8.825 million STRV and reassigned another 276,000 STRV of expected cane shortfall to imports. The next day, CCC announced the FY 2006 beet company allocations. On December 2, 2006, CCC reassigned another 450,000 STRV of an updated cane supply shortfall to imports. On February 2, 2006, CCC increased the OAQ to 9.350 million STRV and reassigned 500,000 STRV of the anticipated domestic supply deficit to imports. The revised FY 2006 cane state allotments and cane and beet sugar processor allocations were announced on March 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic Policy and Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0516, Washington, DC 20250-0516; telephone
(202)720-4146; FAX
(202)690-1480; e-mail: *barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Fecso at
(202)720-4146. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 359b(b)(1) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1359bb(a)(1)) requires the Secretary to establish, by the beginning of each crop year, an appropriate allotment for the marketing by processors of sugar processed from sugar beets and from domestically produced sugarcane at a level the Secretary estimates will result in no forfeitures of sugar to the CCC under the loan program. When CCC announced an 8.600 million ton OAQ in August 2005, it noted the existence of sugar market uncertainties and that the OAQ could be adjusted as warranted. On August 19, 2005, when cane processor allocations were first announced, CCC determined that the cane sugar supply was insufficient to fill the cane sector allotment. As a result, CCC suspended Louisiana proportionate shares and reassigned 120,000 STRV to the FY 2006 raw sugar Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ). On September 29, 2005, in response to preliminary damage estimates to Louisiana production from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, CCC increased the FY 2006 OAQ another 225,000 tons. While this action released 122,288 STRV of domestic beet sugar stocks into the market, the cane sector carried a supply deficit which caused CCC to reassign 276,000 STRV to Mexican refined or raw imports. On December 2, 2006, with domestic cane crop damages further compounded by Hurricane Wilma in Florida, CCC increased its forecast of the cane supply shortfall and reassigned another 450,000 STRV to imports. This was allocated between the WTO raw sugar TRQ (300,000 STRV) and the refined global, first-come, first-served TRQ (150,000 STRV). Since company-specific damages were not known then, CCC did not announce the impact of the reassignment on cane processors. On February 2, 2006, CCC increased the OAQ to 9.350 million STRV and reassigned 500,000 STRV of expected supply shortfalls from both the beet (242,000 STRV) and cane (258,000 STRV) sectors evenly between the WTO raw sugar TRQ and the refined TRQ. CCC took these actions in response to a continuing tight supply resulting largely from the disastrous weather events in August, September, and October 2005. Because Puerto Rico forecast zero production for the 2005 crop, whenever the OAQ was either set or changed, its allotment was immediately reassigned to the mainland states based on their respective shares of the cane sugar allotment. Hawaii did not receive a share of Puerto Rico's allocation because it was not expected to use all of its own allocation. The established 2005-crop beet and cane sugar marketing allotments are listed in the following table, along with the subsequent adjustments: FY 2006 Overall Beet/Cane Allotments and Allocations Distribution FY 2006 allotments as of 8/19/05 225 increase in OAQ on 9/30/05 Reassignment to imports on 9/30/05 Reassignment on 12/02/06 Allotments/ Allocations as of 12/02/06 Increase in OAQ on 2/2/06 Reassignment on 2/2/06 Total change from OAQ increases from last processor announcements Total change from reassignments of 9/30/05, 12/2/06 and 2/2/06 Reassignment of PNW reserve 3/3/06 Allotments/ Allocations as of 3/22/06 Beet Sugar 4,674,100 122,288 0 0 4,796,388 285,338 −242,000 285,338 −242,000 0 4,839,725 Cane Sugar 3,805,900 102,713 −276,000 −450,000 3,182,613 239,663 −258,000 342,375 −984,000 0 3,164,275 WTO Raw Sugar TRQ 120,000 0 0 300,000 420,000 0 250,000 0 550,000 0 670,000 Mexico TRQ Raw or Refined 0 0 276,000 0 276,000 0 0 0 276,000 0 276,000 Refined TRQ (global first-come, first-served) 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 0 1 250,000 0 400,000 0 400,000 Total OAQ 8,600,000 225,000 0 0 8,825,000 525,000 0 627,713 0 0 9,350,000 Beet Processors' Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co 999,303 59,449 99,264 0 1,158,015 American Crystal Sugar Co 1,715,584 110,046 −223,608 129,096 1,731,118 Michigan Sugar Co 482,017 28,675 −43,662 0 467,030 Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op 299,233 17,801 −37,797 0 279,237 So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op 629,936 37,475 10,346 0 677,756 Western Sugar Co 477,233 28,085 −32,271 0 473,047 Wyoming Sugar Co 63,985 3,806 −14,271 0 53,521 PNW Allocation Held in Reserve 129,096 0 0 −129,096 0 Total Beet Sugar 4,796,388 285,338 −242,000 0 4,839,725 State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida 1,908,516 184,019 −646,742 1,445,792 Louisiana 1,447,785 142,359 −317,090 1,273,054 Texas 180,000 15,997 −15,572 180,425 Hawaii 269,599 0 −4,596 265,003 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Total Cane Sugar 3,805,900 342,375 −984,000 3,164,275 Cane Processors' Marketing Allocations: Florida: Florida Crystals 792,262 75,765 −360,906 507,121 Growers Co-op. of FL 324,343 33,102 −92,316 265,129 U.S. Sugar Corp 791,911 75,151 −193,520 673,542 Total 1,908,516 184,019 −646,742 1,445,792 Louisiana: Alma Plantation 155,960 13,551 −38,208 131,302 Cajun Sugar Co-op 146,915 14,395 −36,683 124,626 Cora-Texas Mfg. Co 140,000 13,223 −222 153,001 Lafourche Sugars Corp 89,804 7,754 −24,483 73,075 Louisiana Sugarcane Co-op 94,696 10,946 −11,606 94,036 Lula Westfield, LLC 175,393 16,811 −23,985 168,219 M.A. Patout & Sons 415,959 39,994 −110,757 345,197 St. Mary Sugar Co-op 130,962 14,500 −39,211 106,250 So. Louisiana Sugars Co-op 98,096 11,186 −31,935 77,347 Total 1,447,785 142,359 −317,090 1,273,054 Texas: Rio Grande Valley 180,000 15,997 −15,572 180,425 Hawaii: Gay & Robinson, Inc 54,699 0 −61 54,638 Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company 214,900 0 −4,535 210,366 Total 269,599 0 −4,596 265,003 1 Of this amount, 27,558 STRV to Canada, 65,421 to Mexico and 157,021 to global. These actions apply to all domestic sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006. Signed in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2006. Teresa C. Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. 06-4875 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 7
Traces to 7 documents
U.S. Code
16 references not yet in our index
- 40 CFR 82
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 300
- 40 CFR 300.425(e)
- 42 CFR 414
- 42 CFR 410
- Pub. L. 108-173
- Pub. L. 96-354
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 7 USC 601-674
- 7 CFR 983
- 7 USC 1621-1627
- 7 CFR 36
- 9 CFR 93
- 9 CFR 94
- 9 CFR 94.24
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of data availability and request for comment
Cite40 CFR 82
Cite40 CFR 2
Cite40 CFR 300
Cite40 CFR 300.425(e)
Cite42 CFR 414
Cites 23 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources