Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

21,868 words·~99 min read·/register/2006/06/01/06-5012

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0354; FRL-8177-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Proposal To Approve Revision to Ohio State Implementation Plan To Rescind Oxides of Nitrogen Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan

(SIP)to rescind a rule which originally affected stationary combustion sources located within Priority I regions of the State and, new sources regardless of location. The rule revision we are proposing to approve also applies to nitric acid manufacture. EPA is proposing to approve this rule rescission because we agree with Ohio that the rescinded rule is no longer the limiting regulation for any oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emission units in the State. The rule was originally approved over 30 years ago and has been superseded by a number of State regulations and Federal Regulations of equivalent or more stringent nature. The Ohio NO X SIP Call rules and Federal emissions standards for utility and industrial units all have greater potential for reducing emissions of NO X and improving human health than does the State's rescinded rule. Rescinding this rule removes any confusion in the affected community over which rule applies to NO X sources in Ohio. EPA believes that an approval of this rule revision request would have no adverse effect on air quality. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0354, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *mooney.john@epa.gov.* • Fax:

(312)886-5824. • Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), Air Program Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), Air Program Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0354. 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 *http://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 instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *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 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Paskevicz, Engineer, at

(312)886-6084 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz, Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312)886-6084, or via e-mail at *paskevicz.john@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? II. Who Is Affected by This Rule? III. What Is the Impact on Air Quality Due to the Rescission of this Rule? IV. Did the Public Have Opportunity To Review and Make Comment on the State's Action? V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). 2. Follow directions—The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. 3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. 4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Who Is Affected by This Rule? In taking the action to rescind Ohio Administrative Code

(OAC)3745-23-06, the State of Ohio has determined that no one is affected by this rule. We agree. The State reviewed its NO X plan and found that this 30-year old rule no longer applies to any source in the State. The rule has been made redundant and out-of-date by a series of rulemakings over the past years. Most recently, the State's NO X SIP Call rule which reduces NO X emissions, a summertime ozone precursor, has a greater health benefit because the emission rates associated with the NO X SIP Call are significantly more stringent than OAC 3745-23-06. Similarly, 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Da and subpart G emission rates are more stringent than the rule Ohio is rescinding. III. What Is the Impact on Air Quality Due to the Rescission of This Rule? The State noted that only one unit (a boiler at the General Motors Corporation Moraine Assembly Plant) was affected by this rule, the only unit in the State in which the Title V permit referenced this rule. This source was closed permanently in August 2003. The closure of that unit reduced the emissions of NO X into the atmosphere resulting in a reduction of ozone precursor during the summertime and the reduction of acid rain precursor during the other seasons. No other source permits issued by Ohio rely on this rule to control emissions of NO X . IV. Did the Public Have Opportunity To Review and Make Comment on the State's Action? Yes. On December 1, 2004, a public hearing was held in Columbus, Ohio. No comments were made at the hearing, and no comments were received from the public during the comment period. Comment was received from a staff member of Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Control. The commenter noted that for one type of unit the rule is more stringent than the Federal performance standard for the type of fuel burned. The State responded by writing that Ohio relies on the Federal New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)to set standards for appropriate units and the State emission standards are not intended to be more restrictive than NSPS. Ohio statute prohibits State rules more stringent than Federal rules. While this action appears to be a relaxation for an oil-fired unit, the backstop is the Federal NSPS. However, as comments were being considered by the State, the source (General Motors Corporation) shut down the Moraine Assembly Plant boiler. This unit was the only boiler affected by the rescinded rule. All other existing boilers of 250 million BTU per hour or larger in size are covered by the NO X SIP Call and have emissions caps during the ozone season. V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? We are proposing to approve the State's request to rescind the rule OAC 3745-23-06. A review of the Ohio Title V permit list shows that the only permit still in the system which references this rule is for a 250 million BTU boiler formerly owned by the General Motors Corporation (GM). The GM Moraine assembly plant permit applies to a gas fired boiler (with oil back-up) which ceased operation in 2003, about a year before this action (to rescind this rule) was approved by the Ohio EPA Director. Citizens who wish to comment on this action are encouraged to do so within the time-frame noted in the front of this notice. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( *58 FR 51735* , September 30, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Order 13132 Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( *64 FR 43255,* August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( *65 FR 67249,* November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” ( *62 FR 19885,* April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 or a “significant energy action,” this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” ( *66 FR 28355,* May 22, 2001). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 17, 2006. Norman Niedergang, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E6-8467 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-58] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of Internet Protocol

(IP)Relay Service and Video Relay Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses the misuse of the two Internet-based forms of Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), Internet Protocol

(IP)Relay Service and Video Relay Service (VRS), and seeks comment on possible changes to the TRS regulations to curtail their misuse. DATES: Comments are due on or before July 3, 2006. Reply comments are due on or before July 17, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the general public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket number 03-123 and/or FCC Number 06-58, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone

(202)418-0539 or TTY:

(202)418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In addition, a copy of any comments on the PRA information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to *Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov* , and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to *Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov* , or via fax at

(202)395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Hlibok, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at

(202)418-1475 (voice),

(202)418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at *Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov* . For additional information concerning the PRA information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Leslie Smith at

(202)418-0217, or via the Internet at *Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of Internet Protocol Relay Service and Video Relay Service* ( *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* ); CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-58, contains proposed information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under § 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this document. This is a summary of the Commission's *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* , FCC 06-58, adopted May 3, 2006, and released May 8, 2006, in CG Docket No. 03-123. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using:

(1)the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),

(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or

(3)by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings* , 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: *http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs* / or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. • For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, which in this instance is CG Docket No. 03-123. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to *ecfs@fcc.gov* , and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption in this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies of each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of *before* entering the building. • Commercial mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in which *ex parte* communications are subject to disclosure. Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206

(b)of the Commission's rules. *People With Disabilities:* To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to *fcc504@fcc.gov* or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at

(202)418-0530 (voice),

(202)418-0432 (TTY). Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due July 31, 2006. Comments should address:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it may “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” *OMB Control Number:* 3060-1089. *Title:* Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; *Emergency Access NPRM* and *IP Relay/VRS Fraud FNPRM* , CG Docket No. 03-123. *Form No.:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Number of Respondents:* 8—(6 of which provides VRS and IP Relay service; 2 of which provides VRS). *Number of Responses:* 5,001,190. *Respondents:* Business and other for-profit entities; State, local or tribal government. *Estimated Time per Response:* 4 to 1,000 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual, one-time, and on occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping; Third party disclosure. *Total Annual Burden:* 22,848 hours. *Total Annual Costs:* $0. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On May 8, 2006, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of Internet Protocol

(IP)Relay Service and Video Relay Service* ( *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* ), CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-58 which contains the following information collection requirements involving user registration, *e.g.* , callers register to use VRS and IP Relay and provide their requisite information as necessary: The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* seeks comment on:

(1)Whether IP Relay and VRS providers should be required to implement user registration system in which users provide certain information to their providers, in advance, as a means of curbing illegitimate IP Relay and VRS calls;

(2)what information should be required of the user;

(3)whether there are steps that could be taken, or technology implemented, to prevent the wrongful use of registration information; and

(4)whether the Commission should require VRS and IP Relay providers to maintain records of apparently illegitimate calls that were terminated by the providers. Note: The Commission is merging the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* collection with the *Emergency Access NPRM* collection to avoid duplications. Synopsis IP Relay is a form of text-based TRS that uses the Internet, rather than the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). *See Provision of Improved TRS and Speech to Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; published at 67 FR 39863, June 11, 2002 and 67 FR 39929, June 11, 2002 ( *IP Relay Declaratory Ruling* ) (recognizing IP Relay as a form of TRS). VRS is a form of TRS that allows communication via American Sign Language

(ASL)using video equipment. *See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5152-5154, paragraphs 21-27 (March 6, 2000); published at 65 FR 38432, June 21, 2000 and 65 FR 38490, June 21, 2000 ( *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM* ) (recognizing VRS as a form of TRS); 47 CFR 64.601

(17)(defining VRS). Currently, if IP Relay and VRS are offered in compliance with the TRS mandatory minimum standards, see 47 CFR 64.604; *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Dockets 90-571 and 98-67 and CG Docket 03-123, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; published at 69 FR 53346, September 1, 2004 and 69 FR 53382, September 1, 2004 ( *2004 TRS Report and Order and FNPRM* ) (discussing how TRS works), the costs of providing the services are reimbursed from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund), which is overseen by the Commission. *Improved TRS Order and FNPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd 5152-5154, paragraphs 23-27. Generally, the Interstate TRS Fund compensates providers for providing interstate TRS services, and the states compensate providers for providing intrastate TRS services. Presently, however, all VRS and IP Relay calls are compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. The question of whether the Commission should adopt a mechanism for the jurisdictional separation of costs for these services is pending. *2004 TRS Report and Order and FNPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12561-12564, paragraphs 221-230 (IP Relay), at 12567, paragraphs 241-242 (VRS). Misuse of IP Relay The Commission continues to receive complaints and anecdotal evidence that IP Relay is being misused by persons without a hearing or speech disability to defraud merchants by making purchases over the telephone using stolen, fake, or otherwise invalid credit cards, and to make harassing or “prank” calls. *See generally FCC Reminds Public of Requirements Regarding Internet Relay Service and Issues Alert,* Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 10740 (June 18, 2004) ( *IP Relay Fraud Public Notice* ); published at 69 FR 41478, July 9, 2004. Although such conduct may be illegal, because IP Relay calls reach the relay center via the Internet, and the calling party and the communications assistant (CA), the TRS provider employee who handles the call, communicate only by text, the CA presently receives no identifying information. Consequently, IP Relay affords users a degree of anonymity that is generally not possible with PSTN-based relay calls. Because TTY based TRS calls are made over the PSTN, the call to the relay center includes identifying information such as the calling party's number. That information is used to determine if the call is interstate or intrastate for compensation purposes under Section 255 of the Communications Act, but also has the effect of deterring the misuse of TRS because the relay provider knows where the inbound call is coming from. As a result, some persons have discovered that they may misuse IP Relay. In a typical scenario involving fraudulent credit card purchases, a person places an IP Relay call, usually from outside the United States, to a business located within the United States, places an order for goods (most often commodity items that can be quickly resold), pays with a stolen or fraudulent credit card, and arranges for the goods to be shipped to a location outside the United States. Such misuse is harmful both to the merchants who are victimized and legitimate IP Relay users who may no longer be able to convince merchants to accept their orders for merchandise. In addition, the Commission is concerned about the impact that such misuse may have on the Fund. For example, interstate telecommunications carriers that pay into the Fund (and generally pass those costs on to their customers) should not be paying more because of the misuse of funded services. The Commission has previously alerted the public and the business community to take precautionary steps to ensure that the credit card information received through IP Relay is legitimate. *See* ( *IP Relay Fraud Public Notice* ). The Commission noted that IP Relay providers are developing methods to determine which calls are attempts to make fraudulent purchases, and have successfully prevented some fraudulent purchase calls that can be identified as originating overseas from reaching their intended victims. The Commission also recommended that merchants report any suspected fraudulent purchase calls to the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or their state authorities. Although the Commission has worked with the providers on ways to eliminate or minimize these fraudulent purchase calls, it does not appear that the frequency of such calls has diminished. The Commission also noted the present difficulty in preventing fraudulent purchase calls because of the nature and purpose of TRS. Due to the transparent nature of the CA's role in handling a TRS call, the CA may not interfere with the conversation. The Commission also noted that the TRS statutory and regulatory regime does not contemplate that CAs should have a law enforcement role by monitoring the conversations they are relaying. The current TRS regulations, for example, prohibit CAs from refusing calls, and generally prevent CAs from disclosing or keeping records of the contents of any call. In addition, the regulations prohibit the CAs from intentionally altering a relayed conversation, and require them to relay all calls verbatim. The Commission adopted these regulations as part of the functional equivalency principle to ensure that relay users, like voice telephone users, may access the telephone system and have any conversation they want, confidentially, despite the fact that the call involves a third person (the CA). Misuse of VRS as Substitute for an In-Person Interpreter or a Video Remote Interpreting

(VRI)Service The Commission continues to receive anecdotal evidence that VRS is being used in circumstances that do not involve access to the telephone system, and therefore are not appropriate for a relay service. VRS is not to be used as a substitute for in-person interpreting services or for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). *See, e.g., Reminder that Video Relay Service

(VRS)Provides Access to the Telephone System Only and Cannot be Used as a Substitute for “In-Person” Interpreting Services or Video Remote Interpreting (VRI),* Public Notice, DA 05-2417 (September 7, 2005) ( *VRS-VRI Public Notice* ), published at 70 FR 59346, October 12, 2005 (noting that the Commission continues to receive reports that this is occurring, and reminding, in part, that VRS “is to be used only when a person with a hearing disability, who absent such disability would make a voice telephone call, desires to make a call to a person without such a disability through the telephone system”); *see Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, 6 FCC Rcd 4054, at 4058 (June 5, 2000), paragraph 10; *see also Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* Order on Reconsideration ( *2005 ASL-to-Spanish VRS Order* ), 20 FCC Rcd 13154, paragraph 32, note 109; published at 70 FR 54294, September 14, 2005. Generally, in-person interpreters are contracted and paid on a fee-for-service basis. Similarly, VRI is a commercial service that is used when an interpreter cannot be physically present to interpret for two or more persons who are together at the same location. This service uses a video connection to provide access to an interpreter who is at a remote location. As with in-person interpreters, VRI services are generally contracted and paid on a fee-for-service basis. The Commission recently noted that although “VRS providers generally have procedures in place to terminate calls where VRS is being used as a way to obtain free interpreting services, * * * persons misusing VRS may be doing so in ways to avoid detection, and are also publicizing these methods via consumer bulletin boards and other means.” Discussion Misuse of IP Relay The Commission seeks comment on whether it should waive or modify certain TRS rules to permit IP Relay providers and their CAs to screen out and, where appropriate, terminate calls they determine are not legitimate TRS calls. These include, for example, calls made by hearing persons to merchants to purchase goods with stolen or fraudulent credit cards. The Commission notes that in other contexts, *e.g.* , Speech-to-Speech (STS), the Commission has permitted the CA to step out of the role of strictly being a transparent conduit that relays the call. *See Improved TRS Order and FNPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd 5140, at 5162-5165 paragraphs 49-58 (modifying certain rules for STS calls, including the requirement that the CA relay the call verbatim); *see also 2004 TRS Report and Order and FNPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12571-12573, paragraphs 249, 255-258 (June 30, 2004) ( *FNPRM* raises the issues whether VRS CAs should be able to ask questions to the VRS user during call set-up, and whether the TRS provider or CA should be given the discretion to decline to handle or terminate abusive calls directed at the CA or called party). At the same time, the Commission recognizes that permitting CAs to step out of their role as invisible conduits in a call may create tension with the functional equivalency principle. The Commission invites comment on steps the Commission might take, consistent with Section 225 of the Communications Act, to permit providers to prevent or terminate such calls, even if that means waiving, amending or modifying for IP Relay some of the Commission's TRS mandatory minimum standards. More particularly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the IP Relay provider or CA should be given the discretion to determine that a call is not a legitimate TRS call on a case-by-case basis, and to block, terminate, or refuse to handle the call, alert the merchant who receives the call that the call may be fraudulent, or take some other steps to prevent the misuse of IP Relay. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt rules to guide the exercise of that discretion. Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on whether an IP Relay provider and its CAs can generally determine whether a call to a merchant is for the purpose of fraudulently purchasing goods, and therefore is likely not by a person with a hearing or speech disability seeking access to the telephone system. For example, we understand that there are many readily identifiable indicia of IP Relay calls to merchants by persons seeking to make fraudulent credit card purchases, including that the caller will only pay via credit card; offers more than one credit card number for payment; will not identify him or herself or provide a company name; uses names in reverse (last name as first, first as last); does not negotiate price; will not agree to pay in advance via a check, bank wire, or bank draft; has few questions about the product and lacks knowledge about the product; refuses to call back using the state's relay service; and changes the payment or delivery arrangements after an order has been approved. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are other ways in which a provider may determine if a particular call is not a legitimate relay call? The Commission seeks comment on whether additional steps, such as user registration, might be adopted to curtail the misuse of IP Relay. If the Commission adopted registration as a means of curbing illegitimate IP Relay calls, how might registration be implemented and what information should be required of the user? Are there steps that could be taken, or technology implemented, to prevent the wrongful use of registration information? The Commission further seeks comment on whether there is any statutory bar to the Commission adopting rules that would give the TRS providers a role in curtailing the misuse of IP Relay. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether any procedures should be employed to safeguard legitimate calls and ensure consumers' confidence in the integrity and confidentiality of IP Relay service. Assuming an IP Relay provider or CA is permitted to terminate a call determined to be illegitimate, should the provider nevertheless be compensated for the conversation time of the call prior to termination? Further, if the Commission were to allow the IP Relay provider and the CA discretion to disconnect apparently illegitimate calls, should the provider be required to maintain records of such terminated calls, consistent with Section 225(d)(F) of the Communications Act? Would it be appropriate to include in such records the date, time, and nature of the call and the reason why the provider or CA determined that the call was illegitimate? Finally, the Commission requests commenters to consider whether Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, or any other federal or state statute, would restrict the Commission's authority to take any of the remedial actions discussed above. Section 705 of the Communications Act prohibits, in part, persons who assist in receiving and transmitting telephone calls from divulging or publishing the existence or contents of a call except in certain enumerated circumstances. *See* 47 U.S.C. 605(a). The Commission seeks comment, for example, on whether Section 705 of the Communications Act applies to TRS CAs and, if so, whether permitting a CA to terminate a relay call based on information derived from the CA's role in relaying the call would be precluded by this provision. The Commission also requests parties to provide any additional information that may be relevant to preventing the misuse of IP Relay. Misuse of VRS as Substitute for an In-Person Interpreter or a Video Remote Interpreting Service The Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so, how, it can ensure that VRS is not used as a substitute for hiring an in-person interpreter or a VRI service. Is it possible for VRS providers and their CAs to determine whether a particular VRS call is a legitimate call or is being used as a substitute for an in-person interpreting service or VRI? Do VRS providers presently have procedures in place to ensure that the VRS calls they handle and submit to the Fund administrator for payment are legitimate VRS calls? If not, what procedures could be implemented to prevent such abuse? The Commission further seeks comment on whether the VRS provider or CA should be given the discretion to make the determination that a call is not a legitimate VRS call, and to terminate the call. If so, should it adopt rules to guide the exercise of this discretion? Should the Commission waive or modify any of the TRS regulations to enable VRS providers to ensure that the calls they handle are legitimate? The Commission also seeks comment on whether additional steps, such as user registration, might be adopted to curtail the misuse of VRS. How might registration be implemented and what information should be required of the user? Are there steps that could be taken, or technology implemented, to prevent the wrongful use of registration information? The Commission further seeks comment on whether any procedures should be employed to safeguard legitimate calls and ensure consumers' confidence in the integrity and confidentiality of VRS. Assuming a VRS provider or CA is permitted to terminate a call determined to be illegitimate, should the provider nevertheless be compensated for the conversation time of the call prior to termination? Further, if the Commission were to allow the VRS provider and the CA discretion to disconnect apparently illegitimate VRS calls, should the provider be required to maintain records of such terminated calls, consistent with Section 225(d)(i)(F) of the Communications Act? 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(i)(F) (prohibiting CAs from “keeping records of the content” of any call beyond the duration of the call). Would it be appropriate to include in such records the date, time, and nature of the call and the reason why the provider or CA determined that the call was illegitimate? Finally, the Commission requests commenters to consider whether Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, or any other federal or state statute, would restrict the Commission's authority to take any of the remedial actions discussed above. The Commission also requests parties to provide any additional information that may be relevant to our resolution of this issue. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* . *See* 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. 601 *et. seq* ., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-121, 110 Statute 857

(1996)(CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* provided in paragraph 24 of the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* . The Commission will send a copy of the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* , including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). *See* 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules Providers of telecommunications relay services (TRS), mandated by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, relay telephone calls between persons with hearing and speech disabilities and persons without such disabilities. *See* 47 U.S.C. 225. Under the Commission's regulations, the communications assistant

(CA)may not refuse calls or disclose the contents of any call. The Commission adopted these regulations as part of the functional equivalency principle to ensure that relay users, like voice telephone users, may access the telephone system and have any conversation they want, confidentially, despite the fact that the call involves a third person (the CA). *See* 47 U.S.C. (a)(3). IP Relay and VRS offer consumers anonymity because the call is placed via the Internet, and not the PSTN, the Commission has become aware that these services are being misused. Persons have been using IP Relay to purchase goods from merchants using stolen or fraudulent credit cards. Such misuse is harmful both to the merchant who is defrauded and legitimate relay users who may no longer be able to convince merchants to accept orders via relay. With respect to VRS, the Commission has expressed concern that it is being misused as a substitute for hiring a Video Remote Interpreting

(VRI)service or an in-person interpreter. The Commission is also concerned that the rapid and steady increase in the size of the Interstate TRS Fund may in part be a result of such misuse of IP Relay and VRS. Therefore, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* seeks comment on whether the Commission should waive or modify certain TRS rules to permit IP Relay and VRS providers to screen out and, where appropriate, terminate, IP Relay calls involving fraudulent credit card purchases or VRS calls that are illegitimate. These TRS rules might include those that prevent a CA from refusing calls, generally prohibit a CA from disclosing or keeping records of the content of a call, prohibit a CA from intentionally altering a relayed conversation, and required CAs to relay calls verbatim. *See* 47 CFR 64.604(a)(2)(i) and (ii). More specifically, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* provisionally considers granting the IP Relay provider or CA the discretion to determine that a call is not a legitimate TRS call on a case-by-case basis, and to block, terminate, or refuse to handle the call, alert the merchant who receives the call that the call may be fraudulent. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* also asks for any recommendation on a possible alternative measure to prevent the misuse of IP Relay. In doing so, the Commission contemplates adopting new rules that guide the provider and the CA the exercise of that discretion. Further, the proposed user registration is being contemplated as an additional measure to curtail the misuse of IP Relay. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* also asks for an alternative measure. The IP Relay Fraud *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* provisionally proposes that, assuming an IP Relay provider or CA were granted the discretion to disconnect apparently illegitimate calls, the provider should be required to maintain records of such terminated calls, consistent with Section 225 (d)(i)(f) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 225 (d)(i)(f) (prohibiting CAs from “keeping records of the content” of any call beyond the duration of the call). The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* contemplates on any rule changes permitting IP Relay providers or CAs to terminate apparently illegitimate calls be made permanently or temporarily. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* seeks input on whether Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, or any other federal or state statute, may restrict the Commission's authority to take any of the remedial actions discussed above. *See* , *e.g.* , 18 U.S.C. 2511 (which is noted in Section 705 of the Communications Act). Finally, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* asks whether the providers that terminated these apparently illegitimate calls should be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund nonetheless. In contemplating an appropriate measure to ensure that VRS is not used as a substitute for an in-person interpreter of VRI service, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* asks for recommendation on how the Commission can ensure that VRS is not being misused. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* proposes a possible rule change that grants the VRS provider or CA the discretion to make the determination that a call is not a legitimate VRS call, and to terminate the call. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* also tentatively considers waiving or modifying certain TRS regulations to enable VRS providers to ensure that the calls they handle are legitimate. In addition, the proposed user registration is being contemplated as an additional measure to curtail the misuse of VRS. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* contemplates whether rule changes permitting VRS providers or CAs to terminate apparently illegitimate calls should be made permanent or temporary. Finally, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* asks whether the provider that terminated these apparently illegitimate calls should be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund nonetheless. Legal Basis The authority for the actions proposed in this *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* may be found in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225, and §§ 64.601-64.608 of the Commission's regulations, 47 CFR 64.601-64.608. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the **Federal Register** .” A small business concern is one which:

(1)Is independently owned and operated;

(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and

(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632. As noted above, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* seeks comment on whether IP Relay and VRS providers should be given the discretion to determine that a call is not a legitimate TRS call on a case-by-case basis, and to block, terminate, or refuse to handle the call, or (for IP Relay) alert the merchant who receives the call that the call may be fraudulent, or take some other steps to prevent the misuse of IP Relay and VRS. As a result, the Commission believes that the entities that may be affected by the proposed rules are only those TRS providers that offer IP Relay and VRS. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of “small entity” specifically directed toward TRS providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, for which the small business size standard is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517110. Currently, there are eight TRS providers that offer VRS and/or IP Relay, which consist of interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers, other common carriers, and non-profit organizations. Approximately three or fewer of these entities are small businesses under the SBA size standard. *See* National Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA) Statistics. These numbers are estimates because of recent and pending mergers and partnerships in the telecommunications industry. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM's* proposed rules would permit CAs to terminate certain IP Relay and VRS calls in circumstances where they believe the call is illegitimate. A registration requirement, if adopted, might require VRS and IP Relay providers to register each user so that the provider would have identifying information of the person making the call, and might require the provider or user to update this information as necessary. The rules, if adopted, might also require the providers to keep records of calls that are terminated. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, alternatives, specific to small businesses, that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

(2)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;

(3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and

(4)an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)—(4). The Commission considers the proposed rule changes in the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* as a possible means of achieving the competing public policy goals of ensuring that TRS works as a transparent conduit for the calling and called parties and preventing the misuse of IP Relay and VRS services. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* invites comment on a number of alternative means by which IP Relay and VRS providers might undertake to curtail illegitimate calls. For example, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* asks if the Commission should amend TRS rules to allow providers the discretion to refuse or terminate illegitimate IP Relay and VRS calls. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* also seeks comment on other means by which the Commission might curtail the misuse of IP Relay and VRS, including by adopting a registration requirement. The Commission also asks if there may be alternatives to requiring registration or imposing new obligations on providers, such as waiving certain TRS calls. These alternatives could mitigate any burden the proposed registration requirement might have on small businesses. The Commission notes that by promulgating the rules in allowing the provider and the CA the discretion to terminate apparent illegitimate calls, it would lessen an adverse economic impact on small businesses. The proposed rule change would save many small businesses that may be affected by these illegitimate calls. For instance, small businesses are more vulnerable with illegitimate calls involving fraudulent credit card purchases because they often are not equipped to verify the credit card numbers. The proposed rule change that calls for granting the provider and the CA the discretion to terminate apparent illegitimate calls would not create an additional financial burden on any provider, including small businesses. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* contemplates requiring the providers to maintain records of terminated calls, and seeks comment on what these records should include. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* notes, however, that such a requirement might conflict with the Commission's rules, and also seeks comment on this issue. The *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* therefore contemplates that it may not be possible to require providers to maintain any records. Further, the *IP Relay Fraud FNPRM* also invites comment on whether any proposed rule change and/or requirement should be permanent or temporary. To the extent the adopted measure requiring the providers to maintain records is temporary, any burden on small businesses would be lessened. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules None. Ordering Clauses Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 225, 303(r), 403, 624(g), and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 225, 303(r), 403, 554(g), and 606, this *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.* The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* , including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-8489 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AT92 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Monardella linoides ssp. viminea (willowy monardella) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for *Monardella linoides* ssp. *viminea* (willowy monardella) and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on the November 9, 2005, proposed critical habitat rule need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in our final determination. DATES: Comments must be submitted directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES section) on or before July 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the proposed rule or draft economic analysis, you may submit your comments and materials identified by RIN 1018-AT92, by any of the following methods:

(1)E-mail: *fw8cfwomolivi@fws.gov.* Include “RIN 1018-AT92” in the subject line.

(2)Fax: 760/431-9624.

(3)Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011.

(4)Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-deliver written documents to our office (see ADDRESSES ).

(5)Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/431-9440; facsimile, 760/431-9624. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We intend that any final action resulting from our critical habitat proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule and/or the associated draft economic analysis. On the basis of public comment on the proposed rule and the draft economic analysis, and the conclusions of the final economic analysis, we may find during the development of our final determination that some areas do not contain the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1)The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et al.* ), including whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat;

(2)Specific information on the amount and distribution of willowy monardella habitat, and what habitat contains the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species and why;

(3)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;

(4)The proposed exclusion of habitat on Federal and non-Federal lands within the San Diego Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program

(MSCP)and the Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU)established between the Bureau of Land Management, the Service, the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego, and California Department of Fish and Game, in cooperation with the San Diego Association of Governments under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (please see Application of Sections 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act for details on the MSCP and MOU section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956; November 9, 2005)). Please provide information demonstrating the benefits of including or excluding these lands from the critical habitat designation. If the Secretary determines the benefits of including the lands outweigh the benefits of excluding them, they will not be excluded from critical habitat;

(5)Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities;

(6)Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.

(7)Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local costs. If not, what other costs should be included;

(8)Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical habitat;

(9)Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land and water use controls that derive from the designation;

(10)Whether the designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from any final designation;

(11)Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the listing;

(12)Whether there is information about areas that could be used as substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of critical habitat areas; and

(13)Whether the benefit of exclusion in any particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act. All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES ). Our final determination concerning designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella will take into consideration all comments and any additional information received during the previous comment period and this reopened comment period (70 FR 67956). On the basis of public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the draft economic analysis, and the final economic analysis, we may during the development of our final determination find that areas proposed do not contain the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments and we will make all comments available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule for willowy monardella and the draft economic analysis are also available on the Internet at *http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad* . In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Background On November 9, 2005, we published a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 67956) to designate critical habitat for willowy monardella under the Act. We identified approximately 2,539 acres

(ac)(1,028 hectares (ha)) of habitat occupied at the time of listing and containing the necessary features essential to the conservation of the species. We proposed to designate approximately 115 ac (47 ha) of critical habitat in one unit in San Diego County, California. Approximately 1,863 ac (754 ha) of the 2,539 ac (1,028 ha) of habitat are covered under an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) for Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; therefore, this area is exempted from critical habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Approximately 560 ac (227 ha) is proposed for exclusion from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because this area is covered under the Multiple Species Conservation Program for southwestern San Diego County or conserved as open space (Otay Mountain Wilderness). The first public comment period for the willowy monardella proposed critical habitat rule closed on January 9, 2006. For more information on this species, refer to the final rule listing this species as endangered, published in the **Federal Register** on October 13, 1998 (63 FR 54938). Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the November 9, 2005 (70 FR 67956), proposed designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella. The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of willowy monardella, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for willowy monardella in proposed critical habitat areas and areas proposed for exclusion. The analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this analysis considered those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the final designation of critical habitat. The draft economic analysis estimates that, because all of the proposed critical habitat is conserved or will be conserved under the Multi Species Conservation Program and there are no effects to future development, and there are no potential economic impacts anticipated from the critical designation as proposed. There are some costs associated with plant monitoring and management on preserve lands; however, these costs are minimal. Additionally, the Otay Mountain wilderness area, if designated as critical habitat, would also presumably result in small administrative costs resulting from the inclusion of critical habitat analyses in future Section 7 consultations involving the plant. Give the wilderness status of the lands, the number of future consultations would likely be very low and likely conservation measures minimal. But there would likely be some small cost. We will evaluate any potential costs associated with the Otay Mountain wilderness area in the final rulemaking. Of the approximately 2,539 acres

(ac)(1,028 hectares (ha)) identified as proposed critical habitat for this species, approximately 560 ac (227 ha) are covered under the MSCP or conserved as open space (Otay Mountain Wilderness) and are proposed for exclusion from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Furthermore, since the MSCP was approved in 1997 before the 1998 listing of willowy monardella there are no coextensive costs associated with the listing of the species as endangered since conservation measures benefiting the species were incorporated into the Multi Species Conservation Program prior to its listing. Also, the analysis estimates that there will be no future development costs for the 115 ac (47 ha) of proposed critical habitat not proposed for exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please refer to Section III.3.2 of the draft economic analysis and the “Application of Section 4(a)(3) and Possible Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section of the proposed rule (70 FR 67956) for a more detailed discussion of the Multi Species Conservation Program. Required Determinations Regulatory Planning and Review In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, because the draft economic analysis indicates that the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat are negligent, we do not anticipate that this final rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the timeline for publication in the **Federal Register** , the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)did not formally review the proposed rule. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (e.g., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations. To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial, and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation. If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that potential costs involving conservation measures for willowy monardella incurred for activities involving non-Federal agencies (residential, commercial, and industrial development) would be negligible due to the fact that there are minimal economic effects of the proposed critical habitat. These minimal costs are associated with plant monitoring and management on preserve lands. Based on this data, we have determined that this proposed designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers or farmers in San Diego County since private lands proposed for critical habitat are part of a designated open space preserve with no plans for farming or development as stated earlier in the Background section. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Section V.2 of our draft economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business entities. Executive Order 13211 On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Section V.1 of our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential effects on energy supply. *Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.* ) In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:

(a)This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except

(i)a condition of Federal assistance; or

(ii)a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.” The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.

(b)We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis, all proposed critical habitat areas are already identified and/or conserved as open space or covered by a habitat conservation plan. Consequently, we do not believe that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Takings In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for willowy monardella. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for willowy monardella does not pose significant takings implications. Author The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: May 19, 2006. Matt Hogan, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. E6-8459 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 105 Thursday, June 1, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 25, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)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;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agricultural Statistics Service *Title:* Floriculture Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0093. *Summary of Collection:* The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics

(NASS)is to prepare current official state and national estimates of crop and livestock production. Since 1985 Congress has provided funds to conduct an annual Commercial Floriculture Survey that provides basic data on this important and growing industry. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. This statute specifies that “The Secretary of Agriculture shall procure and preserve all information concerning agriculture which can be obtain by the collection of statistics * * * and shall distribute them among agriculturists”. The floriculture industry accounts for about 7 percent of agricultural cash receipts at the U.S. level. The survey is conducted in 36 states, which ensures 97 percent coverage of the U.S. value of production. *Need and Use of the Information:* NASS will collect information to assess alternative agriculture opportunities. Data from the survey will provide statistics for Federal and State agencies to monitor the use of agricultural chemicals. If the information is not collected data users could not keep abreast of changes. *Description of Respondents:* Farms; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 13,600. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 6,057. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-8454 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-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 Wildlife Pharmaceuticals Incorporated of Fort Collins, Colorado, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/224,569, “Vaccine Compositions and Adjuvant”, filed on September 12, 2005. DATES: Comments must be received by July 3, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 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 to 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 Wildlife Pharmaceuticals Incorporated of Fort Collins, Colorado, 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. Richard J. Brenner, Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-8215 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [FDMS Docket No. FSIS-2006-0004] International Standard-Setting Activities AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), in accordance with section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. This notice also provides a list of other standard-setting activities of Codex, including commodity standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and revised texts. This notice, which covers the time periods from June 1, 2005, to May 31, 2006, and June 1, 2006, to May 31, 2007, seeks comments on standards currently under consideration and recommendations for new standards. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. FSIS prefers to receive comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, and then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2006-0004 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the “Advanced Search” function in Regulations.gov. • Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROM's, and hand-or courier-delivered items: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 300 12th Street, SW., Room 102 Cotton Annex, Washington, DC 20250. All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2006-0004. Please state that your comments refer to Codex and, if your comments relate to specific Codex committees, please identify those committees in your comments and submit a copy of your comments to the delegate from that particular committee. All comments submitted in response to this proposal will be posted to the regulations.gov Web site. The comments also will be available for public inspection in the FSIS Docket Room at the address listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The comments also will be posted on the Agency's Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2006_Notices_Index/index.asp.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: F. Edward Scarbrough, Ph.D., United States Manager for Codex, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700;

(202)205-7760. For information pertaining to particular committees, the delegate of that committee may be contacted. (A complete list of U.S. delegates and alternate delegates can be found in Attachment 2 to this notice.) Documents pertaining to Codex are accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.* The U.S. Codex Office also maintains a Web site at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The World Trade Organization

(WTO)was established on January 1, 1995, as the common international institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Trade Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). U.S. membership in the WTO was approved and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The Uruguay Round Agreements became effective, with respect to the United States, on January 1, 1995. Pursuant to section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended, the President is required to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary

(SPS)standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization, Codex, World Organisation for Animal Health, and the International Plant Protection Convention. The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the agency responsible for informing the public of SPS standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated to the Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the responsibility to inform the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex. The FSIS Administrator has, in turn, assigned the responsibility for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex to the U.S. Codex Office, FSIS. Codex was created in 1962 by two U.N. organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO)and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the principal international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trade practices in the food trade, and promote coordination of food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities. As the agency responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, FSIS publishes this notice in the **Federal Register** annually. Attachment 1 (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities of Codex) sets forth the following information: 1. The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration; and 2. For each SPS standard specified: a. A description of the consideration or planned consideration of the standard; b. Whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of the standard; c. The agenda for United States participation, if any; and d. The agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to the standard. To obtain copies of those standards listed in Attachment 1 that are under consideration by Codex, please contact the Codex delegate or the U.S. Codex office. This notice also solicits public comment on those standards that are currently under consideration or planned for consideration and recommendations for new standards. The delegate, in conjunction with the responsible agency, will take the comments received into account in participating in the consideration of the standards and in proposing matters to be considered by Codex. The United States' delegate will facilitate public participation in the United States Government's activities relating to Codex Alimentarius. The United States' delegate will maintain a list of individuals, groups, and organizations that have expressed an interest in the activities of the Codex committees and will disseminate information regarding United States' delegation activities to interested parties. This information will include the current status of each agenda item; the United States Government's position or preliminary position on the agenda items; and the time and place of planning meetings and debriefing meetings following Codex committee sessions. In addition, the U.S. Codex Office makes much of the same information available through its Web page, *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/Codex_Alimentarius/index.asp* . Please visit the Web page or notify the appropriate U.S. delegate or the Office of U.S. Codex Alimentarius, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, if you would like to access or receive information about specific committees. The information provided in Attachment 1 describes the status of Codex standard-setting activities by the Codex Committees for the time periods from June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006, and June 1, 2006 to May 31, 2007. Attachment 2 provides the list of U.S. Codex Officials (includes U.S. delegates and alternate delegates). A list of forthcoming Codex sessions may be found at: *http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/current.jsp?lang=en* . Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_policies/2006_Notices_Index/index.asp* . The Regulations.gov Web site is the central online rulemaking portal of the United States government. It is being offered as a public service to increase participation in the Federal government's regulatory activities. FSIS participates in Regulations.gov and will accept comments on documents published on the site. The site allows visitors to search by keyword or Department or Agency for rulemakings that allow for public comment. Each entry provides a quick link to a comment form so that visitors can type in their comments and submit them to FSIS. The Web site is located at *http://www.regulations.gov* . FSIS also will make copies of this **Federal Register** publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, **Federal Register** notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at *http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_events/email_subscription/* . Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account. Done at Washington, DC on May 26, 2006. F. Edward Scarbrough, United States Manager for Codex. Attachment 1: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Activities of Codex; Codex Alimentarius Commission and Executive Committee The Codex Alimentarius Commission will hold its Twenty-Ninth Session July 3-8, 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland. At that time, it will consider procedural matters and the standards, codes of practice, and related matters brought to its attention by the general subject committees, commodity committees, *ad hoc* Task Forces and member delegations. It will also consider options to implement recommendations from the review of Codex committee structure and mandates of Codex committees and task forces, as well as budgetary and strategic planning issues. At this Session, the Commission will elect a Chair and three Vice Chairs. Prior to the Commission meeting, the Executive Committee will have met at its Fifty-seventh Session on December 6-9, 2005 and its Fifty-Eighth Session on June 28-July 1, 2006. It is composed of the chairperson, vice-chairpersons, seven members elected from the Commission, one from each of the following geographic regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East, North America, and South-West Pacific. Additionally, pending approval by the Directors General of FAO and WHO, regional coordinators from the six regional committees will serve as members of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will consider the Codex Strategic Plan 2008-1013; review the Codex committee structure and mandate of Codex committees and task forces; review matters arising from reports of Codex Committees, proposals for new work, and standards management issues; and review the Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Transition in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius. *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods determines priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods and recommends Maximum Residue Limits

(MRLs)for veterinary drugs. A veterinary drug is defined as any substance applied or administered to a food producing animal, such as meat or dairy animals, poultry, fish or bees, for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic purposes or for modification of physiological functions or behavior. A Codex Maximum Limit for Veterinary Drugs (MRLVD) is the maximum concentration of residue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug (expressed in mg/kg or ug/kg on a fresh weight basis) that is adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be permitted or recognized as acceptable in or on a food. An MRLVD is based on the Acceptable Daily Intake

(ADI)and indicates the amount of residue in food that is considered to be without appreciable toxicological hazard. An MRLVD also takes into account other relevant public health risks as well as food technological aspects. When establishing an MRLVD, consideration is also given to residues that occur in food of plant origin or the environment. Furthermore, the MRLVD may be reduced to be consistent with good practices in the use of veterinary drugs and to the extent that practical analytical methods are available. Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI): An estimate by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the amount of a veterinary drug, expressed on a body weight basis, that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk (standard man = 60 kg). The Committee met in Cancun, Mexico on May 8-12, 2006. The reference document is ALINORM 06/29/31. The Committee worked on: • Draft MRLs for Trichlorfon (metrifonate), Flumequine (in black tiger shrimp), Pirlimycin, Cypermethrin and Alpha-cypermethrin, and Doramectin (in cow's milk) at step 7 • Proposed Draft MRLs for Ractopamine at step 4 • Proposed Draft *Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Program for Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods* • Proposed Draft Revised Part I, II, III of *Guidelines for the Establishment of a Regulatory Program for the Control of Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods* • Discussion Paper on *Risk Management Methodologies* , including Risk Assessment Policies in the CCRVDF • Priority List of Veterinary Drugs Requiring Evaluation or Reevaluation • List of Methods of Analysis for Veterinary Drug Residues and Identification of Routine Methods of Analysis • Recommendations on Residues of Veterinary Drugs without ADI/MRL (Prioritization of work) *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants The Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC):

(a)Establishes or endorses permitted maximum or guideline levels for individual food additives, contaminants, and naturally occurring toxicants in food and animal feed;

(b)prepares priority lists of food additives and contaminants for toxicological evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA);

(c)recommends specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission;

(d)considers methods of analysis for food additive and contaminants; and

(e)considers and elaborates standards and codes for related subjects such as labeling of food additives when sold as such and food irradiation. The following matters are under consideration by the Commission at its 29th Session in July 2006. The relevant document is ALINORM 6/29/12. Food Additives To be considered at Step 8: • General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA): Draft Food Additive Provisions in Tables 1 and 2 • Draft Revised Preamble to the GSFA To be considered at Step 5/8: • General Standard for Food Additives: Proposed Draft Food Additive Provisions in Tables 1, 2 and 3 • Advisory Specifications for the Identity and Purity of Food Additives • Proposed Draft Revisions to the Codex International Numbering System for Food Additives *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommends to the Codex Alimentarius Commission establishment of maximum limits for pesticide residues for specific food items or in groups of food. A Codex Maximum Residue Limit for Pesticide

(MRLP)is the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue (expressed as mg/kg), recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be legally permitted in or on food commodities and animal feeds. Foods derived from commodities that comply with the respective MRLPs are intended to be toxicologically acceptable, that is, consideration of the various dietary residue intake estimates and determinations both at the national and international level in comparison with the ADI*, should indicate that foods complying with Codex MRLPs are safe for human consumption. Codex MRLPs are primarily intended to apply in international trade and are derived from reviews conducted by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).

(a)Review of residue data from supervised trials and supervised uses including those reflecting national good agricultural practices (GAP). Data from supervised trials conducted at the highest nationally recommended, authorized, or registered uses are included in the review. In order to accommodate variations in national pest control requirements, Codex MRLPs take into account the higher levels shown to arise in such supervised trials, which are considered to represent effective pest control practices.

(b)Toxicological assessments of the pesticide and its residue. The following items will be considered by the Commission at its 29th Session in July 2006. The relevant document is ALINORM 06/29/24. To be considered at Step 8: • Draft and Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits • Draft Risk Analysis Principles Applied by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues • Proposed Draft Guidelines on Estimation of Uncertainly of Results To be considered at Step 5/8: • Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits To be considered at Step 5: • Proposed Draft and Proposed Draft Revised Maximum Residue Limits To be considered for Revocation: • Codex CLX-Ds To be considered for New Work: • Revision of the Codex Classification of Foods and Animal Feeds • Priority List of Pesticides for review by JMPR The committee is continuing work on: • Draft and Proposed Draft MRLs • Revision of the List of Recommended Methods on Analysis for Pesticide Residues • Revision of the Codex Priority List of Pesticides for review by JMPR • Discussion paper on how Codex MRLs are used at the national level • Discussion paper on the establishment of MRLs for Processed or Ready-to-Eat Foods *Acceptable Daily Intake

(ADI)of a chemical is the daily intake which, during an entire lifetime, appears to be without appreciable risk to the health of the consumer on the basis of all the known facts at the time of the evaluation of the chemical by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues. It is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of body weight. Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling The Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling:

(a)Defines the criteria appropriate to Codex Methods of Analysis and Sampling;

(b)Serves as a coordinating body for Codex with other international groups working in methods of analysis and sampling and quality assurance systems for laboratories;

(c)Specifies, on the basis of final recommendations submitted to it by the other bodies referred to in

(b)above, Reference Methods of Analysis and Sampling appropriate to Codex Standards which are generally applicable to a number of foods;

(d)Considers, amends, if necessary, and endorses, as appropriate, methods of analysis and sampling proposed by Codex (Commodity) Committees, except that methods of analysis and sampling for residues of pesticides or veterinary drugs in food, the assessment of microbiological quality and safety in food, and the assessment of specifications for food additives do not fall within the terms of reference of this Committee;

(e)Elaborates sampling plans and procedures, as may be required;

(f)Considers specific sampling and analysis problems submitted to it by the Commission or any of its Committees; and

(g)Defines procedures, protocols, guidelines or related texts for the assessment of food laboratory proficiency, as well as quality assurance systems for laboratories. The 27th Session of the Committee met in Budapest, Hungary, on May 15-19, 2006. The relevant document is ALINORM 06/29/23. For endorsement of the 29th Commission in 2006: • Proposed amendments to the Procedural Manual: Recommendations on the Use of Analytical Results The Committee considered the following items at its 27th Session: To be considered at Step 7: • Proposed Draft Guidelines for Evaluating Acceptable Methods of Analysis To be considered at Step 4: • Proposed Draft Guidelines for Settling of Disputes on Analytical

(test)Results The Committee continued to work on: • Further Review of the *Analytical Terminology for Codex Use* in the Procedural Manual • Endorsement of Methods of Analysis and Sampling Provisions in Codex Standards • Criteria for Methods of Analysis for the Detection and Identification of Foods derived from Biotechnology • Methods of Analysis for the determination of dioxins and PCBs • Revision of the IUPAC/ISO/AOAC Protocol for Proficiency Testing • Uncertainly of Sampling *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/GIPSA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems The Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems is charged with developing principles and guidelines for food import and export inspection and certification systems to protect consumers and to facilitate trade. Additionally, the Committee develops principles and guidelines for the application of measures by competent authorities to provide assurance that foods comply with essential requirements, especially statutory health requirements. This encompasses work on: Equivalence of food inspection systems including equivalence agreements, and processes and procedures to ensure that sanitary measures are implemented; guidelines on food import control systems; and guidelines on food product certification and information exchange. The development of guidelines for the appropriate utilization of quality assurance systems to ensure that foodstuffs conform to requirements and to facilitate trade also are included in the Committee's terms of reference. The reference document is ALINORM 06/29/30. The following will be considered for adoption by the Commission at its 29th Session in July 2006. To be considered at step 5/8: • Proposed Draft *Principles and Guidelines for Imported Food Inspection Based on Risk* • Proposed Draft *Principles for Traceability/Product Tracing as a Tool within a Food Inspection and Certification Program* The committee is continuing work on: • Proposed Draft Appendix to the *Guidelines on the Judgment of Equivalence of Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection and Certification* • Proposed Draft *Principles and Guidelines for Generic Official Certificate Formats and the Production and Issuance of Certificates* • Discussion paper on the reply to the question raised by the 22nd Session of the Codex Committee on General Principles regarding the revision of the Codex Code of Ethics for International Trade of Foods *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on General Principles The Codex Committee on General Principles deals with procedure and general matters as are referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The 23rd Session met on April 10-14, 2006, in Paris, France. The relevant document is ALINORM 06/29/33. Matters to be considered for adoption by the 28th Commission in July 2005: • Draft Terms of Reference for the Committee on Food Additives and the Committee on Contaminants in Foods; • *Draft Revised Criteria for Prioritisation Process of Compounds for Evaluation by JMPR* proposed by the Committee on Pesticide Residues and the recommendations on *The Use of Analytical Results: Sampling Plans, Relationship between the Analytical Results, the Measurement Uncertainty, Recovery Factors and Provisions in Codex Standards* proposed by the Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling; • Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure: Duration of the Term of Office of the Members of the Executive Committee; • Proposed Amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts and to the Guidelines on the Conduct of Meetings of Codex Committee and *Ad hoc* Intergovernmental Task Forces; • Proposed Amendments to the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius; and • Recommendations concerning the adoption of Codex food safety standards as related to the use of the term “interim” The Committee continued work on: • Proposed Draft Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety (Guidance to National Governments) • Consideration of the structure, content and presentation of the Procedural Manual • Review of the guides to the consideration of Standards at Step 8 • Proposed changes in the Elaboration Procedures • New definition of risk analysis terms related to food safety • Management of the work in the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Labelling The Codex Committee on Food Labelling is responsible for drafting provisions on labelling issues assigned by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The reference document is ALINORM 06/29/22. The Committee held its 34th Session in Ottawa, Canada, on May 1-5, 2006. It considered the following items: • *Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods,* Proposed Revised Sections: Annex 2—Table 3, Revision to Table 1 (Natural Sodium Nitrate) • Draft Amendment to the *General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods* —(Draft Recommendations for the Labelling of Foods Obtained through Certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering) Section 2. (Definitions) • Proposed Draft *Guidelines for the Labelling of Food and Food Ingredients obtained through certain Techniques of Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering: Labelling Provisions* • Proposed Draft Amendment to the *General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods: Quantitative Declaration of Ingredients* • Definition of Trans Fatty Acids • Discussion paper on Advertising. *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Food Hygiene The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene has four primary responsibilities. The first is to draft basic provisions on food hygiene applicable to all food. These provisions normally take the form of Codes of Hygienic Practice for a specific commodity (e.g. bottled water) or group of commodities (e.g., milk and milk products). The second is to suggest and prioritize areas where there is a need for microbiological risk assessment at the international level and to consider microbiological risk management matters in relation to food hygiene and in relation to the risk assessment activities of FAO and WHO. The third is to consider, amend if necessary, and endorse food hygiene provisions that are incorporated into specific Codex commodity standards by the Codex commodity committees. The fourth is to provide such other general guidance to the Commission on matters relating to food hygiene as may be necessary. The 38th Session of the Committee will meet in Houston, TX, December 4-8, 2006. The Committee will discuss the following: To be considered at Step 7: • Proposed Draft Guidelines on the Application of the General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Control of *Listeria monocytogenes* in Ready-to-Eat Foods • Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Eggs and Egg Products • Proposed Draft Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Management The committee will continue to work on: • Proposed Draft Guidelines for Validation of Food Hygienic Control Measures • Proposed Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Powdered Formulae for Infants and Children • Endorsement of Hygiene Provisions in Codex Standards and Codes of Practice • Annexes to the step 7 documents • Proposals/risk profiles: —Guidelines for the Application of the General Principles for Food Hygiene to the Risk-Based Control of Enterohemorrhagic *E. coli* in Ground Beef and Fermented Sausages —Guidelines for the Application of the General Principles of Food Hygiene to the Risk-Based Control of *Salmonella* spp. in Broiler Chickens —Guidelines for Risk Management Options for *Campylobacter* in Broiler Chickens — *Vibrio* spp. in Seafood —Viruses in Food *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating world-wide standards and codes of practice for fresh fruits and vegetables. The Committee will meet in Mexico City, Mexico, on September 25-29, 2006. At the session they will discuss the following items: • Draft Standard for Tomatoes: Provisions on Sizing • Draft Standard for Table Grapes: Maturity Requirements and Minimum Bunch Weight • Proposed Draft Standard for Apples • Codex Standard for Sweet Cassava, Revision of Section 1 Definition of Produce, Section 3 Sizing to include other varieties of cassavas fit for human consumption • Proposed Draft *Guidelines for the Quality Control of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables* • Standard Layout for Codex Standards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables • Priority List for the Standardization of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. *Responsible Agency:* USDA/AMS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses is responsible for studying nutritional problems referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Committee also drafts general provisions, as appropriate, on nutritional aspects of all foods and develops standards, guidelines, or related texts for foods for special dietary uses. The relevant document is ALINORM 06/29/26. The following items will be considered by the 29th Session of the Commission in July 2006: To be adopted at Step 8: • Draft Standard for Processed Cereal-Based Foods for Infants and Young Children To be adopted at Step 5: • Formulas for Special Medical Purposes Intended for Infants (Section B) The Committee continues work on: • Draft Revised Standard for Gluten-Free Foods • Draft Revised Standard for Infant Formula (Section A) and Formulas for Special Medical Purposes Intended for Infants (Section B) • *Guidelines for Use of Nutrition Claims* —Draft Table of Conditions for Nutrient Content Claims (Part B containing Provisions on Dietary Fibre) • Proposed Draft Revision of the Advisory Lists of Nutrient Compounds for Use in Foods for Special Dietary Uses Intended for Use by Infants and Young Children • Proposed Draft Recommendations on the Scientific Basis of Health Claims • Discussion Paper on the Application of Risk Analysis to the Work of the CCNFSDU • Discussion Paper on Proposals for Additional or Revised Nutrient Reference Values

(NRVs)*Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/FNS. *U.S. Participation:* YES. Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products The Fish and Fishery Products Committee is responsible for elaborating standards for fresh, frozen and otherwise processed fish, crustaceans and mollusks. The Committee will meet on September 18-22, 2006, in Beijing, China. The Committee will discuss the following items: To be considered at Step 7: • Draft Standard for Sturgeon Caviar To be considered at Step 4: • Proposed Draft Standard for Live and Non-Viable Bivalve Mollusks • Proposed Draft Standard for Smoked Fish • Proposed Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat • Proposed Draft Code of Practice for fish and fishery products (other sections) The Committee continues work on the following: • Proposed Draft Code of Practice on the Processing of Scallop Meat • Review of the Procedure for the Inclusion of Species • Proposed Draft Amendment of the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products (Clupea bentincki) • Proposed amendment of the labeling section in the Standard for Canned Sardines and Sardine-Type Products *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDC/NOAA/NMFS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products The Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products is responsible for establishing international codes and standards for milk and milk products. The Committee held its 7th Session from March 27-April 1, 2006 in Queenstown, New Zealand. The relevant document is ALINORM 06/29/11. Standards to be considered at Step 8: • Draft Amendment to the Codex General Standard for Cheese • Draft Standard for a Blend of Evaporated Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat • Draft Standard for a Blend of Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat in Powdered Form • Draft Standard for a Blend of Sweetened Condensed Skimmed Milk and Vegetable Fat • Draft Revised Standard for Whey Cheese • Draft Revised Standards for Cheddar (C-1) and Danbo (C-3) Standards to be considered at Step 5/8 : • Proposed draft revised Standard for Edam (C-4) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Gouda (C-5) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Havarti (C-6) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Samso (C-7) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Emmental (C-9) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Tilsiter (C-11) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Saint-Paulin (C-13) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Provolone (C-15) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Cottage Cheese (C-16) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Coulommiers (C-18) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Cream Cheese (C-31) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Camembert (C-33) • Proposed draft revised Standard for Brie (C-34) • Proposed draft Standard for Mozzarella • Proposed draft Standard for Dairy Fat Spreads At Step 5: • Proposed Draft Model Export Certificate for Milk and Milk Products Other committee work: • Proposed Draft Template for Fermented Milk Drinks Provision • Proposed Draft Revised Standard for Processed Cheese • Amendment to the List of Additives of the Codex Standard for Creams and Prepared Creams • Food Additive Listings for the Codex Standard for Fermented Milks (flavoured fermented milks) • Methods of Analysis and Sampling for Milk and Milk Products Standards • Discussion paper on sampling plans for milk products in presence of significant measurement error *Responsible Agency:* USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Fats and Oils The Codex Committee on Fats and Oils is responsible for elaborating standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable, and marine origin. The Committee will meet February 19-23, 2007, in London, U.K. The Committee will discuss the following items: To be considered at Step 7: • Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Rice Bran Oil • Draft Standard for Fat Spreads and Blended Spreads: Food additives • Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes To be considered at Step 4: • Proposed Draft List of Acceptable Previous Cargoes The Committee continues work on: • Proposed Draft Amendments to the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils • Unbleached palm oil: total carotenoids—Accelerated Procedure • Criteria for the Revision of Named Vegetable Oils • Consideration of the level of linolenic acid in the Standard for Olive Oils and Olive Pomace Oils • Consideration of International Standards Organization proposal to amend the nomenclature of oils *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/ARS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables The Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables is responsible for elaborating standards for Processed Fruits and Vegetables. After having been adjourned *sine die* , the Committee reconvened in Washington, DC, in March 1998 to begin work revising the standards. The Committee will hold its next session on October 16-21, 2006. At the session they will discuss the following items: To be considered at Step 7: • Draft Codex Standard for Pickled Fruits and Vegetables • Draft Codex Standard for Processed Tomato Concentrates • Draft Codex Standard for Preserved (Canned) Tomatoes • Draft Codex Standards for Certain Canned Citrus Fruits To be considered at Step 4: • Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Jams, Jellies and Marmalades • Proposed Draft Codex Standard for Certain Canned Vegetables (including Packing Media for Canned Vegetables) Other work: • Methods of Analysis for Processed Fruits and Vegetables • Priority List for the Standardization of Processed Fruits and Vegetables *Responsible Agency:* USDA/AMS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses, and Legumes The 26th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the Proposed Draft Standard for Instant Noodles at Step 5, on the recommendation of the Coordinating Committee for Asia, and advanced it to Step 6 for consideration by the Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes by correspondence. The United States, as host government, circulated the Draft Standard for comments and, based on comments received, revised the Draft Standard for final adoption at Step 8. The 33rd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling endorsed the labeling provisions of the Draft Standard. However, at its 37th Session, the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) did not endorse the food additive provisions of the Draft Standard, so it was not sent forward to the Commission for final adoption. In addition, the 26th Session of the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS) endorsed all but one of the methods listed in the Draft Standard. The additive and methods sections of the Draft Standard have been re-circulated and revised, and will be sent to the next sessions of CCFAC and CCMAS for endorsement before forwarding the Draft Standard to the Commission for adoption at its 29th Session in July. *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA; USDA/GIPSA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Certain Codex Commodity Committees 1 Several Codex Alimentarius Commodity Committees have adjourned *sine die* . The following Committees fall into this category: • *Cocoa Products and Chocolate* *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Meat Hygiene* *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Natural Mineral Water* *Responsible Agency:* HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Sugars* *Responsible Agency:* USDA/ARS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. • *Vegetable Proteins* *Responsible Agency:* USDA/ARS; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Biotechnology The Commission established this task force to develop standards, guidelines, or recommendations, as appropriate, for foods derived from biotechnology or traits introduced into foods by biotechnology, on the basis of scientific evidence, risk analysis and having regard, where appropriate, to other legitimate factors relevant to the health of consumers and the promotion of fair trade practices. The original Task Force, established by the 23rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for a four year period of time, has completed its work. The Task Force was re-established at the 27th Session of the Commission. The Committee will hold its 6th Session in Japan on November 27-December 1, 2006. The Task Force will discuss the following items: • Proposed Draft *Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Animals* • Proposed Draft Annex to the *Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant DNA Plants* regarding food safety of foods derived from recombinant plants modified for nutritional and health benefits • Discussion paper on Comparative Food Composition Analysis of Staple Foods • Discussion paper on *Sanitary Surveillance after Placing on the Market of Foods Derived from Biotechnology* • Discussion paper on *Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Animals Exposed to Protection against Disease through Gene Therapy or Recombinant-DNA Vaccines* *Responsible Agency:* USDA; HHS/FDA. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. FAO/WHO Regional Coordinating Committees The Codex Alimentarius Commission is made up of an Executive Committee, as well as approximately 30 subsidiary bodies. Included in these subsidiary bodies are coordinating committees for groups of countries located in proximity to each other who share common concerns. There are currently six Regional Coordinating Committees: • Coordinating Committee for Africa. • Coordinating Committee for Asia. • Coordinating Committee for Europe. • Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean. • Coordinating Committee for the Near East. • Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific The United States participates as an active member of the Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific, and is informed of the other coordinating committees through meeting documents, final reports, and representation at meetings. Each regional committee: • Defines the problems and needs of the region concerning food standards and food control; • Promotes within the committee contacts for the mutual exchange of information on proposed regulatory initiatives and problems arising from food control and stimulates the strengthening of food control infrastructures; • Recommends to the Commission the development of world-wide standards for products of interest to the region, including products considered by the committee to have an international market potential in the future; and • Serves a general coordinating role for the region and performs such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Commission. Codex Coordinating Committee for North America and the South-West Pacific The Coordinating Committee is responsible for defining problems and needs concerning food standards and food control of all Codex member countries of the region. The next meeting will be held in Apia, Samoa on October 10-13, 2006. Items on the agenda for the next meeting may include: • Codex working documents of special interest to regional member states. • Progress Report: Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards. • Evaluation and revision of the Strategic Plan for the Coordinating Committee for North America and the Southwest Pacific. • Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Trust Fund for the participation of developing countries in Codex. • Election of new regional coordinator. *Responsible Agency:* USDA/FSIS. *U.S. Participation:* Yes. Attachment 2: U.S. Codex Alimentarius Officials Codex Committee Chairpersons Codex Committee on Food Hygiene Dr. Karen Hulebak, Chief Scientist, Office of Public Health Science, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 3130, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone:

(202)720-5735, Fax:

(202)720-2980, E-mail: *karen.hulebak@fsis.usda.gov* Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables Mr. Terry Bane, Branch Chief, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, Room 0709, South Building, Stop 9247, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0247, Phone:

(202)720-4693, Fax:

(202)690-1087, E-mail: *terry.bane@usda.gov* Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods Dr. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration 7500 Standish Place (HFV-1), Rockville, MD 20855, Phone:

(301)827-2950, Fax:

(301)827-8401, E-mail: *ssundlof@cvm.fda.gov* Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes ( Adjourned sine die) Mr. Steven N. Tanner, Director, Technical Services Division, Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10383 N. Executive Hills Boulevard, Kansas City, MO 64153-1394, Phone:

(816)891-0401, Fax:

(816)891-0478, E-mail: *Stephen.n.tanner@gipsa.usda.gov* Listing of U.S. Delegates and Alternates Worldwide General Subject Codex Committees Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (Host Government—United States) U.S. Delegate Dr. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine, FDA, 7500 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone:

(301)827-1796, Fax:

(301)594-2297, E-mail: *SVaughn@cvm.fda.gov* Alternate Delegate Dr. Alice Thaler, Staff Director, Animal and Egg Production Food Safety Staff, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)690-2683, Fax:

(202)720-8213, E-mail: *alice.thaler@fsis.usda.gov* Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (Host Government—The Netherlands) U.S. Delegate Dr. Terry C. Troxell, Director, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-300), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-1700, Fax:

(301)436-2632, E-mail: *terry.troxell@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Dr. Dennis M. Keefe, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-200), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-1284, Fax:

(301)436-2972, E-mail: *dennis.keefe@fda.hhs.gov* Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (Host Government—The Netherlands) U.S. Delegate Ms. Lois Rossi, Director of Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone:

(703)305-5035, Fax:

(703)305-5147, E-mail: *rossi.lois@epa.gov* Alternate Delegate Dr. Robert Epstein, Associate Deputy Administrator, Science and Technology, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room 3522S, Mail Stop 0222, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20090, Phone

(202)720-2158, Fax:

(202)720-1484, E-mail: robert. *epstein@usda.gov* Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (Host Government—Hungary) U.S. Delegate Dr. Gregory Diachenko, Director, Division of Product Manufacture and Use, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), FDA (HFS-300), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone

(301)436-2387, Fax:

(301)436-2364, E-mail: *gregory.diachenko@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Mr. Donald C. Kendall, Technical Services Division, Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, USDA, 10383 N. Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153-1394, Phone:

(816)891-0463, Fax:

(816)891-0478, E-mail: *Donnald.C.Kendall@usda.gov* Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (Host Government—Australia) U.S. Delegate Dr. Catherine Carnevale, Director, International Activities Staff, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-550), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-2380, Fax:

(301)436-2618, E-mail: *catherine.carnevale@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Ms. Karen Stuck, Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Room 2137, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone:

(202)720-3470, Fax:

(202)720-7990, E-mail: *karen.stuck@fsis.usda.gov* Codex Committee on General Principles (Host Government—France) U.S. Delegate Note: A member of the Policy Steering Committee heads the delegation to meetings of the General Principles Committee. Codex Committee on Food Labelling (Host Government—Canada) U.S. Delegate Dr. Barbara O. Schneeman, Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labelling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA 5100 Paint Branch Parkway (HFS-800), College Park, MD 20740, Phone:

(301)436-2373, Fax:

(301)436-2636, E-mail: *barbara.schneeman@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Ms. Danielle Schor, Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1400, Phone:

(202)720-6618, Fax:

(202)720-7771, E-mail: *danielle.schor@fsis.usda.gov* Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (Host Government—United States) U.S. Delegate Dr. Robert L. Buchanan, Lead Scientist, Food Safety Initiative, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-006), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-2369, Fax:

(301)436-2360, E-mail: *robert.buchanan@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegates Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Room 3149 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone:

(202)205-0495, Fax:

(202)401-1760, E-mail: daniel. *engeljohn@fsis.usda.gov* Dr. Rebecca Buckner, Consumer Safety Officer, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, Room 3B-0033 Harvey Wiley Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 10740, Phone:

(301)436-1486, Fax:

(301)436-2632, E-mail: *rebecca.buckner@fda.hhs.gov* Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses (Host Government—Germany) U.S. Delegate Dr. Barbara O. Schneeman, Director, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Highway (HFS-800), College Park, MD 20740, Tel:

(301)436-2373, Fax:

(301)436-2636, E-mail: *barbara.schneeman@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Ms. Patricia McKinney, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Analysis, Nutrition Service, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302, Tel:

(703)305-2126, Fax:

(703)305-2576, E-mail: *pat.mckinney@fns.usda.gov* Worldwide Commodity Codex Committees; Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (Host Government—Mexico) U.S. Delegate Mr. Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetables Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2086, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone

(202)690-4944, Fax:

(202)720-4722, E-mail: *dorian.lafond@usda.gov* Alternate Delegate Vacant. Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (Host Government—Norway) U.S. Delegate Mr. Philip C. Spiller, Director, Office of Seafood, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-400), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-2300, Fax:

(301)436-2599, E-mail: *philip.spiller@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Mr. Richard V. Cano, Acting Director, National Seafood Inspection Program, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone:

(301)713-2355, Fax:

(301)713-1081, E-mail: *richard.cano@noaa.gov* Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses and Legumes (Host Government—United States) U.S. Delegate Dr. Henry Kim, Supervisory Chemist, Division of Plant Product Safety, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:

(301)436-2023, Fax:

(301)436-2651, E-mail: *henry.kim@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Mr. David Shipman, Deputy Administrator, Federal Grain Inspection Division, Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration, USDA, Room 1661, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)720-9170, Fax:

(202)205-9237, E-mail: *dshipman@gipsadc.usda.gov* Codex Committee on Milk and Milk Products (Host Government—New Zealand) U.S. Delegate Mr. Duane Spomer, Food Defense Advisor, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2750, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)720-1861, Fax:

(202)205-5772, E-mail: *duane.spomer@usda.gov* Alternate Delegate John F. Sheehan, Director, Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:

(301)436-1488, Fax:

(301)436-2632, E-mail: *john.sheehan@fda.hhs.gov* Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (Host Government—United Kingdom) U.S. Delegate Dr. Dennis M. Keefe, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-200), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-1284, Fax:

(301)436-2972, E-mail: *dennis.keefe@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Ms. Kathleen Warner, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 1815 N. University Street, Peoria, IL 61604, Phone

(309)681-6584, Fax:

(309)681-6668, E-mail: *warnerk@ncaur.usda.gov* Codex Committee on Cocoa Products and Chocolate (Host Government—Switzerland) U.S. Delegate Dr. Michelle Smith, Food Technologist, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-2024, Fax:

(301)436-2651, E-mail: *michelle.smith@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Vacant. Codex Committee on Sugars (Host Government—United Kingdom) U.S. Delegate Dr. Thomas L. Tew, Research Geneticist, Sugarcane Research Unit, Agricultural Research, USDA, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360, Phone:

(504)872-5042, Fax:

(504)868-8369, E-mail: *ttew@nola.srrc.usda.gov* Alternate Delegate Mr. Martin Stutsman, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-1642, Fax:

(301)436-2651, E-mail: *martin.stutsman@fda.hhs.gov* Codex Committee on Processed Fruits and Vegetables (Host Government—United States) U.S. Delegate Mr. Dorian LaFond, International Standards Coordinator, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2086, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)690-4944, Fax:

(202)720-0016, E-mail: *dorian.lafond@usda.gov* Alternate Delegate Mr. Paul South, Division of Plant Product Safety, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone:

(301)436-1640, Fax:

(301)436-2561, E-mail: *paul.south@fda.hhs.gov* Codex Committee on Vegetable Proteins (Host Government—Canada) U.S. Delegate Dr. Wilda H. Martinez, Area Director, ARS North Atlantic Area, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 600 E. Mermaid Lane, Wyndmoor, PA 19038, Phone:

(215)233-6593, Fax:

(215)233-6719, E-mail: *wmartinez@ars.usda.gov* Alternate Delegate Dr. Jeanne Rader , Director, Division of Research and Applied Technology, Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-2377, Fax:

(301)436-2636, E-mail: *jeanne.rader@fda.hhs.gov* Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene (Host Government—New Zealand) U.S. Delegate Dr. Perfecto Santiago, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Food Security and Emergency Preparedness, Room 3130, South Building, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone:

(202)205-0452, Fax:

(202)690-5634, E-mail: *perfecto.santiago@fsis.usda.gov* Alternate Delegate Dr. William O. James, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, Room 3143, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone:

(202)720-5362, Fax:

(202)690-3856, E-mail: *william.james@fsis.usda.gov* Codex Committee on Natural Mineral Waters (Host Government—Switzerland) U.S. Delegate Dr. Terry C. Troxell, Director, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-305), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-1700, Fax:

(301)436-2632, E-mail: *terry.troxell@fda.hhs.gov* Alternate Delegate Ms. Shellee Anderson, Division of Programs and Enforcement Policy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA (HFS-306), Harvey W. Wiley Federal Building 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740-3835, Phone:

(301)436-1491, Fax:

(301)436-2632, E-mail: *shellee.anderson@fda.hhs.gov* Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces; Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived From Modern Biotechnology (Host Government—Japan) U.S. Delegate Vacant Alternate Delegate Dr. Eric Flamm, Senior Advisor, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Room 1561 Parklawn Building, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone:

(301)827-0591, Fax:

(301)827-4774, E-mail: *EFLAMM@OC.FDA.GOV* *There are six regional coordinating committees:* Coordinating Committee for Africa Coordinating Committee for Asia Coordinating Committee for Europe Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean Coordinating Committee for the Near East Coordinating Committee for North American and the South-West Pacific *Contact:* Paulo Almeida, Associate Manager for Codex, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 4861, South Building 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone

(202)205-7760, Fax

(202)720-3157, E-mail: *paulo.almeida@fsis.usda.gov* [FR Doc. 06-5012 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 21

Traces to 21 documents