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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-06-29 · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Correction

14,066 words·~64 min read·/register/2006/06/29/06-5802

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

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 35 and 37 [Docket Nos. RM05-25-000 and RM05-17-000] Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects a paragraph formatting and numbering error in a notice of proposed rulemaking that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published in the **Federal Register** on June 6, 2006.
That action proposed amendments to Commission Order Nos. 888 and 889. DATES: *Effective Date:* June 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David D. Withnell, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at
(202)502-8421. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Document 06-4904, published on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 32636) make the following correction: On page 32695, in column 3, paragraph nos. 395 and 396 should be merged into one paragraph and designated no. 395. Paragraph no. 397 becomes 396 and the subsequent paragraph numbers are corrected accordingly. (The corrected sequence runs from the renumbered paragraph no. 396 to the last paragraph in the preamble, which will be paragraph no. 499.) Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10146 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-111578-06] RIN 1545-BF56 Computer Software Under Section 199(c)(5)(B); Correction AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-111578-06) that was published in the **Federal Register** on Thursday, June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31128). The document contains temporary regulations concerning the application of section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides a deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities, to certain transactions involving computer software. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Handleman or Lauren Ross Taylor,
(202)622-3040 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-111578-06) that is the subject of this correction is under section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, REG-111578-06 contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-111578-06), that was the subject of FR Doc. 06-4827, is corrected as follows: On page 31129, column 1, in the signature block, the language “Mark E. Mathews,” is corrected to read “Mark E. Matthews, ”. Guy R. Traynor, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-10250 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-064] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations during the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the shoreline at Ocean City, MD. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the regulated area during the power boat race. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 415 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to
(757)391-8149. The Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at
(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-064), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On September 10, 2006, the Offshore Performance Association, Inc. will conduct the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Challenge”, on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD. The event will consist of approximately 40 V-hull and twin-hull inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval race course. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic would be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Ocean City, MD. The regulated area includes a section of the Atlantic Ocean approximately two miles long, and one half mile wide, the course is approximately 300 yards offshore and runs parallel with the Ocean City, Maryland shoreline. The southern boundary of the regulated area is adjacent to and due east of 5th Street and the northern boundary of the area is adjacent to and due east of 43rd Street at Ocean City, Maryland. The temporary special local regulations would be enforced from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 10, 2006, and would restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the power boat race. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when practical would allow the passage of vessels when races are not taking place. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this proposed regulation would prevent traffic from transiting a small segment of the Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, MD during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area would be enforced. Extensive advance notifications would be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, area newspapers and local radio stations, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Atlantic Ocean during the event. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Although the regulated area would apply to waters of the Atlantic Ocean near the Ocean City, Maryland shoreline, traffic would be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. In the case where the patrol commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels would be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 10, 2006, add a temporary *§ 100.35-T05-064* to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-064 Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, MD.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of the Atlantic Ocean bounded by a line drawn from a position along the shoreline near Ocean City, MD at latitude 38°22′01″ N., longitude 075°03′56″ W., thence easterly to latitude 38°21′50″ N., longitude 075°03′28″ W., thence southwesterly to latitude 38°20′10″ N., longitude 075°04′08″ W., thence westerly to a position near the shoreline at latitude 38°20′15″ N., longitude 075°04′38″ W., thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of origin. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the Ocean City, Maryland Offshore Challenge under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads.
(c)* Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(3)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(4)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 10, 2006. Dated: June 16, 2006. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-10251 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-06-045] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Grassy Sound Channel, Great Channel, and Townsend Inlet, NJ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations of four Cape May County Bridge Commission (CMCBC) bridges: the Townsend Inlet Bridge, at mile 0.3 in Avalon; the County of Cape May Bridge, at mile 0.7, across Great Channel between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island; the Ocean Drive Bridge, at mile 1.0, across Grassy Sound Channel in North Wildwood; and the Two-Mile Bridge, at NJICW mile 112.2, across Middle Thorofare in Wildwood Crest, in NJ. This proposal will allow the bridges to remain in the closed position at particular dates and times to accommodate the Ocean Drive Marathon. Vessels that can pass under the bridges without a bridge opening may do so at all times. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757)398-6629. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking, CGD05-06-045, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like a return receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all submittals received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On behalf of the Ocean Drive Run Club, Inc., (Ocean Drive RC), CMCBC requested changes to the operating drawbridge regulations to accommodate the Ocean Drive Marathon. The race is an annual event sponsored by the Ocean Drive RC, attracting spectators and participants from the surrounding cities and states. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.37(a) for reasons of public safety or for public functions, the District Commander may authorize the opening and closing of a drawbridge for a specified period of time. CMCBC who owns and operates the Townsend Inlet Bridge, at mile 0.3 in Avalon; the County of Cape May Bridge, at mile 0.7, across Great Channel between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island; the Grassy Sound Channel Bridge, at mile 1.0 in North Wildwood; and the Two-Mile Bridge, at NJICW mile 112.2, across Middle Thorofare in Wildwood Crest, requested the following drawbridge changes: Great Channel The County of Cape May Bridge, at mile 0.7, across Great Channel between Stone Harbor and Nummy Island has a vertical clearance of 15 feet above mean high water
(MHW)and 19 feet above mean low water
(MLW)in the closed position to vessels. The existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.720. The Ocean Drive Marathon is held on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. To facilitate the race, the proposal will maintain the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year. Grassy Sound Channel The Grassy Sound Channel Bridge, at mile 1.0 in Middle Township, has a vertical clearance of 15 feet above MHW and 19 feet above MLW in the closed position to vessels. The existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.721. The Ocean Drive Marathon is held on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. To facilitate the race, the proposal will maintain the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year. New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway The Two-Mile Bridge, at NJICW mile 112.2 at Wildwood Crest, has a vertical clearance of 23 feet above MHW and 27 feet above MLW in the closed position to vessels. The existing operating regulations are set out in 33 CFR 117.5 which requires the bridge to open on signal. The Ocean Drive Marathon is held on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. To facilitate the race, the proposal will maintain the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year. Townsend Inlet The Townsend Inlet Bridge, at mile 0.3 in Avalon, has a vertical clearance of 23 feet above MHW and 26 feet above MLW in the closed position to vessels. The existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.5, which requires the bridge to open on signal. The Ocean Drive Marathon is held on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. To facilitate the race, the proposal will maintain the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year. The Coast Guard believes that the proposed changes are reasonable due to the short duration the drawbridges will be maintained in the closed position to vessels and because this event has been observed in past years with little or no impact to marine or vehicular traffic. This is also a necessary measure to facilitate public safety and allow for the orderly movement of participants and vehicular traffic before, during and after the race. Discussion of Proposed Rule Great Channel This proposed rule amends 33 CFR 117.720 which details the operating regulations for the County of Cape May Bridge. A new paragraph
(c)will be added to § 117.720, which allows the County of Cape May Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. Grassy Sound Channel This proposed rule amends 33 CFR 117.721 which details the operating regulations for the Grassy Sound Channel Bridge. Section 117.721 will be revised to allow the Grassy Sound Channel Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway This proposed rule amends 33 CFR 117.733 by redesignating paragraph
(k)as paragraph
(m)and adding new paragraph
(k)which details the operating regulations for the Two-Mile Bridge, at mile 112.2, across Middle Thorofare in Wildwood Crest. A new paragraph
(k)will be added to § 117.733, which allows the Two-Mile Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. Tuckahoe River Section 117.757 Tuckahoe River will be redesignated as § 117.758 to allow alphabetical placement and codification of Townsend Inlet at § 117.757. Townsend Inlet Townsend Inlet will be added at new § 117.757, detailing the operating regulations and allowing the Townsend Inlet Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year with the third Sunday used as the alternate day, if the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning, and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District,
(757)398-6222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this proposed rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Section 117.720 is amended by adding a new paragraph
(c)to read as follows: § 117.720 Great Channel.
(c)From 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year, the draw need not open for vessels. If the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday, the draw need not open from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the third Sunday of March of every year. 3. Section 117.721 is revised to read as follows: § 117.721 Grassy Sound Channel. The draw of the Grassy Sound Channel Bridge, mile 1.0 in Middle Township, shall open on signal from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. from May 15 through September 30. From 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year, the draw need not open for vessels. If the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday, the draw need not open from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the third Sunday of March of every year. Two hours advance notice is required for all other openings by calling
(609)368-4591. 4. Section 117.733 is amended by redesignating paragraph
(k)as paragraph
(m)and adding a new paragraph
(k)to read as follows: § 117.733 New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway.
(k)The draw of Two-Mile Bridge, mile 112.2, across Middle Thorofare in Wildwood Crest, shall open on signal; except from 9:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year, the draw need not open for vessels. If the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday, the draw need not open for vessels from 9:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on the third Sunday of March of every year. § 117.757 [Redesignated] 5. Redesignate § 117.757 as § 117.758. 6. Add new § 117.757 to read as follows: § 117.757 Townsend Inlet. The draw of Townsend Inlet Bridge, mile 0.3 in Avalon, shall open on signal; except from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the fourth Sunday in March of every year, the draw need not open for vessels. If the fourth Sunday falls on a religious holiday, the draw need not open from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on the third Sunday of March of every year. Dated: June 16, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-10249 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-06-044] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Broad Creek, Cedar Creek, and Nanticoke River, DE AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation regulations of four Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) bridges: The Poplar Street Bridge, at mile 8.2, and the US 13A Bridge, at mile 8.2, both across Broad Creek in Laurel, DE; the SR 36 Bridge, at mile 0.5, over Cedar Creek in Cedar Beach; and SR 13 Bridge, at mile 39.6, across Nanticoke River in Seaford, DE. This proposal would allow the bridges to open on signal if advance notice is given at different times from 4 to 48 hours. This proposal will eliminate the continual attendance of draw tender services during the non-peak boating periods while still providing the reasonable needs of navigation. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(757)398-6222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking CGD05-06-044, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like a return receipt, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all submittals received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose DelDOT, who owns and operates the Poplar Street Bridge and the US 13A Bridge, at mile 8.2, both across Broad Creek in Laurel; the SR 36 Bridge, at mile 0.5, over Cedar Creek in Cedar Beach; and the SR 13 Bridge, at mile 39.6, across Nanticoke River in Seaford, requested advance notification for vessel openings and a reduction in draw tender services for the following explanations: Broad Creek In the closed-to-navigation position, the Poplar Street Bridge, mile 8.2, and the US 13A Bridge, mile 8.2, both in Laurel, have vertical clearances of five feet and two feet, above mean high water, and eight feet and five feet, above mean low water, respectively. The existing operating regulations for these drawbridges are set out in 33 CFR 117.233, which requires the bridges, along with the Conrail Bridge (at mile 8.0) in Laurel, to open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. DelDOT provided information to the Coast Guard about the conditions and reduced operational capabilities of the draw spans. Due to the infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge for the past 10 years, DelDOT requested to change the current operating regulations by requiring the draw spans to open on signal if at least 48 hours notice is given year-round. Cedar Creek The SR 36 Bridge, at mile 0.5 in Cedar Beach, has a vertical clearance of two feet, above mean high water, and six feet, above mean low water, in the closed-to-navigation position. The existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.5, which requires the bridge to open on signal. Bridge opening data submitted by DelDOT revealed significantly fewer openings at certain hours of the night in the spring and summer months; and during the fall and winter months. The bridge logs also show the majority of drawbridge openings were performed year-round between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. The proposed change will require the draw to open on signal from April 1 through November 30, except from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m., when at least four hours notice must be given. From 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., from December 1 through March 31, the draw would open on signal. At all other times, the draw would open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. These changes are being requested to reduce bridge tender services required at the SR 36 Bridge due to the decrease in vessel opening requests. Nanticoke River The SR 13 Bridge, at mile 39.6, in Seaford has a vertical clearance of three feet, above mean high water and seven feet, above mean low water in the closed-to-navigation position. The existing regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.5, which requires the bridge to open on signal. Bridge opening data submitted by DelDOT revealed significantly fewer openings between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in the spring and summer months; and on weekdays in the fall and winter months. The proposed change would require the draw to open on signal from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April 1 through October 31; and at all other times, if at least four hours notice is given. From 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., from November 1 through March 31, on weekends (Saturdays and Sundays), the draw would open on signal; and at all other times, if at least four hours notice is given. These changes are being requested to reduce bridge tender services required at the SR 13 Bridge due to the decrease in vessel opening requests. Discussion of Proposed Rule Broad Creek The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.233, which governs the Conrail Bridge, mile 8.0, the Poplar Street bridge, mile 8.2 and the US 13A bridge, mile 8.2, all in Laurel. The current paragraph would be divided into paragraphs
(a)and (b). Paragraph
(a)would contain the existing rule for the Conrail Bridge, mile 8.0, in Laurel and would state that the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. Paragraph
(b)would contain the proposed rules for the Poplar Street Bridge, mile 8.2 and the US 13A Bridge, mile 8.2, both in Laurel. The proposals would require the drawbridges to open on signal if at least 48 hours notice is given. Cedar Creek A new section, 117.234, would be inserted to allow SR 36 Bridge, mile 0.5 in Cedar Beach, to open on signal from April 1 through November 30, except from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m., if at least four hours notice is given. From December 1 through March 31, from 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., the draw would open on signal; and at all other times, if at least four hours notice is given. Nanticoke River In 33 CFR 117.243, this proposed rule redesignate paragraphs
(a)through
(c)as paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(3). The redesignated paragraph
(a)would contain the existing rules for the Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge, mile 39.4, at Seaford. The contact information for advance notice at the Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge would be changed to the “train dispatcher” vice “bridge tender” and the new telephone numbers at
(717)215-0379 or
(609)412-4338. The redesignated paragraph
(b)would contain the proposed rules for the SR 13 Bridge, mile 39.6, in Seaford. The proposed rule would require the draw to open on signal from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April 1 through October 31; and at all other times, if at least four hours notice is given. From 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., from November 1 through March 31, on weekends (Saturdays and Sundays), the draw would open on signal; and at all other times, if at least four hours notice is given. Text modifications to be consistent with other proposed changes would be made in these paragraphs, as appropriate. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning, and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the proposed scheduled bridge openings, to minimize delays. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the proposed scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, and
(757)398-6222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Revise § 117.233 to read as follows: § 117.233 Broad Creek.
(a)The draw of the Conrail Bridge, mile 8.0 at Laurel, shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.
(b)The draws of the Poplar Street Bridge, mile 8.2, and the US 13A Bridge, mile 8.2, all at Laurel, shall open on signal if at least 48 hours notice is given. 3. Add new § 117.234 to read as follows: § 117.234 Cedar Creek. The SR 36 Bridge, mile 0.5 in Cedar Beach, shall open on signal; except that from April 1 through November 30 from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.; and from December 1 through March 31 from 6:30 p.m. to 6 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. 4. Revise § 117.243 to read as follows: § 117.243 Nanticoke River.
(a)The draw of the Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge, mile 39.4 in Seaford, will operate as follows:
(1)From March 15 through November 15, the draw will open on signal for all vessels except that from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. at least 2 1/2 hours notice will be required.
(2)At all times, from November 16 through March 14, the draw will open on signal if at least 2 1/2 hours notice is given.
(3)When notice is required, the owner operator of the vessel must provide the train dispatcher with an estimated time of passage by calling
(717)215-0379 or
(609)412-4338.
(b)The draw of the SR 13 Bridge, mile 39.6 in Seaford, shall open on signal, except that from April 1 through October 31, from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m.; and from November 1 through March 31, Monday to Friday; and from November 1 through March 31, on Saturday and Sunday, from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given. Dated: June 16, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-10247 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 3 RIN 2900-AM28 Accrued Benefits AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)proposes to amend its adjudication regulation regarding accrued benefits. The amendments are the result of changes in statute and to clarify existing regulatory provisions. DATES: Comments must be received by VA on or before August 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to
(202)273-9026; or e-mail through *www.Regulations.gov.* Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AM28.” All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call
(202)273-9515 for an appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maya Ferrandino, Consultant, Policy and Regulations Staff, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)273-7211. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 104 of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (the “Act”), Public Law 108-183, amended 38 U.S.C. 5121, which addresses payment of certain accrued benefits upon the death of a beneficiary. To ensure consistency with statutory changes and for clarification purposes, VA proposes to amend its regulations regarding accrued benefits. Prior to its amendment by section 104 of the Act, the introductory portion of 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) read as follows: Except as provided in sections 3329 and 3330 of title 31, periodic monetary benefits (other than insurance and servicemen's indemnity) under laws administered by the Secretary to which an individual was entitled at death under existing ratings or decisions, or those based on evidence in the file at date of death (hereinafter in this section and section 5122 of this title referred to as “accrued benefits”) and due and unpaid for a period not to exceed two years, shall, upon the death of such individual be paid as follows * * *. 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) (2002). VA traditionally construed 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) as providing only one type of benefit to survivors: Accrued benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(CAVC)in *Bonny* v. *Principi,* 16 Vet. App. 504 (2002), interpreted section 5121(a) differently. The CAVC's analysis includes the following: The comma in the middle of paragraph (a), between “decisions” and “or,” and the use of the conjunction “or” after the comma, indicate that the separated phrases state substantive alternatives. 38 U.S.C. 5121(a). The paragraph provides for payment of
(1)periodic monetary benefits to which an individual was entitled at death under existing ratings or decisions, which the Court will call “benefits awarded but unpaid”, or
(2)periodic monetary benefits based on evidence in the file at the date of an entitled individual's death and due and unpaid for a period not to exceed two years, which are called “accrued benefits” for purposes of sections 5121 and 5122. *Id.* The important distinction between the two types of periodic monetary benefits is that one type of benefits is due to be paid to the veteran at his death and one type is not. As to the former, when the benefits have been awarded but not paid pre-death, an eligible survivor is to receive the entire amount of the award. The right to receive the entire amount of periodic monetary benefits that was awarded to the eligible individual shifts to the eligible survivor when payment of the award was not made before the eligible individual died. This interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) is completely consistent with the plain language of the statute, as previously quoted and interpreted herein. As to the latter type of periodic monetary benefits, what is determinative regarding accrued benefits is that evidence in the individual's file at the date of death supports a decision in favor of awarding benefits. Because the benefits cannot be awarded to the deceased individual, an eligible survivor can claim a portion of those accrued benefits. *Bonny,* 16 Vet. App. at 507-08. The CAVC's analysis recognized two kinds of benefits under 38 U.S.C. 5121, which the court called “accrued benefits” and “benefits awarded but unpaid.” Section 104(a) of the Act removed the two-year limitation on accrued benefits payable under 38 U.S.C. 5121. Section 104(c) of the Act made “technical amendments” to 38 U.S.C. 5121, including removal of the comma after “or decisions” in the introductory text of paragraph (a). This is the same comma relied upon by the CAVC in *Bonny* for interpreting 38 U.S.C. 5121 to require a distinction between accrued benefits and “benefits awarded but unpaid.” Therefore, an important question is whether Congress intended to change the interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 5121 required by the *Bonny* decision by removing this comma. Based on the following analysis, we believe that it did. The Act resulted from enactment of House bill H.R. 2297, as amended, 108th Cong. (2003). The “Explanatory Statement on Senate Amendment to House Bill, H.R. 2297, as Amended” notes that the Act reflects a compromise agreement reached by the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs on provisions of a number of House and Senate bills affecting veterans' benefits. Section 104 of the Act was based on portions of two of these bills, section 6 of H.R. 1460, 108th Cong. (2003), and section 105 of S. 1132, as amended, 108th Cong. (2003). *See* 149 Cong. Rec. S15,133-34 (daily ed. Nov. 19, 2003). The removal of the comma in question in 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) comes from section 105(b) of S. 1132, as passed by the Senate. *See* 149 Cong. Rec. S13,745 (daily ed. Oct. 31, 2003). S. 1132 was also based on a number of other bills, including S. 1188, 108th Cong. (2003). A principal purpose of S. 1188 was to amend 38 U.S.C. 5121 “to repeal the two-year limitation on the payment of accrued benefits that are due and unpaid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs upon the death of a veteran or other beneficiary under laws administered by the Secretary.” 149 Cong. Rec. S7,476 (daily ed. June 5, 2003). As originally drafted, S. 1188 did not include the “technical amendments” in section 104(c) of the Act. On July 10, 2003, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on a number of the bills that would become the sources of S. 1132. Persons who testified at that hearing included Daniel L. Cooper, VA's Under Secretary for Benefits, whose statement to the Committee included the following comment concerning S. 1188: In addition, we note one technical change needed in section 2 of S. 1188 should it be enacted. The comma in current section 5121(a) following “existing ratings or decisions” should be deleted to clarify, for purposes of 38 U.S.C. 5121(b) and
(c)and 5122, that the term “accrued benefits” includes both benefits that have been awarded to an individual in existing ratings or decisions but not paid before the individual's death, as well as benefits that could be awarded based on evidence in the file at the date of death. S. Rep. No. 108-169, at 46-47 (2003). Further, in its discussion of section 105 of S. 1132, the Committee noted that: At the Committee's hearing on July 10, 2003, Under Secretary Cooper commented as follows: “The distinction the *Bonny* decision draws between the two categories of claimants—those whose claims had been approved and those whose entitlement had yet to be recognized when they died—is really one without a difference. In either case, a claimant's estate is deprived of the value of benefits to which the claimant was, in life, entitled.” *Id* . at 8. Based on this legislative history, we conclude that Congress' purpose in removing the comma from the introductory paragraph of 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) was to provide for only one type of benefit under section 5121, removing the distinction between accrued benefits and “benefits awarded but unpaid” that resulted from the *Bonny* decision. The interplay between *Bonny* and section 104 of the Act is also affected by the fact that different portions of section 104 of the Act became effective at different times. Because there is no specific effective date in the Act for section 104(c) (the “technical amendments” which include removal of the comma that was a basis for the CAVC's interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 5121 in *Bonny* ), that portion of the Act became effective when the Act was signed into law on December 16, 2003. On the other hand, under section 104(d) of the Act, the amendment to 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) removing the provision restricting benefits to those that were due and unpaid “for a period not to exceed two years” applies to deaths occurring on or after December 16, 2003. These factors lead to consideration of what, if any, viability the *Bonny* distinctions between accrued benefits and “benefits awarded but unpaid” still have. For the reasons discussed in the following paragraphs, we conclude that these distinctions are still applicable in a very limited number of cases. Particularly because of the differences in effective date provisions for different provisions of section 104 of the Act, sorting this out involves looking at the time line for when the deceased beneficiary died and when claims for 38 U.S.C. 5121 benefits were received and decided. Based on the plain language of the Act, we believe the *Bonny* division of 38 U.S.C. 5121 benefits clearly does not apply if the deceased beneficiary died on or after December 16, 2003. Effective on that date, the statutory basis for *Bonny* 's interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 5121 as creating two different types of VA benefits was removed. In any event, there would be little benefit to claimants for preserving the distinction in such cases because the two-year benefit limitation has been repealed in cases where the deceased beneficiary died on or after December 16, 2003. For claims filed on or after December 16, 2003, VA must apply 38 U.S.C. 5121 as amended by the Act. However, the two-year limitation applies to all 38 U.S.C. 5121 accrued benefit claims VA received on or after December 16, 2003, if the deceased beneficiary died before December 16, 2003. This is true because
(1)the Act removed the statutory underpinnings of the *Bonny* decision effective on December 16, 2003, but
(2)Congress very clearly intended the removal of the two-year limitation in amended 38 U.S.C. 5121 to be effective only where the deceased beneficiary died on or after December 16, 2003. The last question is how VA should apply 38 U.S.C. 5121 to cases where the deceased beneficiary died before December 16, 2003, and a claim for section 5121 benefits was pending on December 16, 2003. We propose that the Act's amendments do not apply in such cases. VA's General Counsel addressed retroactive application of a new statute in VAOPGCPREC 7-2003 (2003), holding: In *Kuzma* v. *Principi* , 341 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [(Federal Circuit)] overruled *Karnas* v. *Derwinski,* 1 Vet. App. 308 (1991), to the extent it conflicts with the precedents of the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. *Karnas* is inconsistent with Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent insofar as *Karnas* provides that, when a statute or regulation changes while a claim is pending before [VA] or a court, whichever version of the statute or regulation is most favorable to the claimant will govern unless the statute or regulation clearly specifies otherwise. Accordingly, that rule adopted in *Karnas* no longer applies in determining whether a new statute or regulation applies to a pending claim. Pursuant to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, when a new statute is enacted or a new regulation is issued while a claim is pending before VA, VA must first determine whether the statute or regulation identifies the types of claims to which it applies. If the statute or regulation is silent, VA must determine whether applying the new provision to claims that were pending when it took effect would produce genuinely retroactive effects. If applying the new provision would produce such retroactive effects, VA ordinarily should not apply the new provision to the claim. If applying the new provision would not produce retroactive effects, VA ordinarily must apply the new provision. As to the first criterion, with respect to the technical corrections in section 104(c), the Act does not “identif[y] the types of claims to which it applies.” The question then becomes whether applying the Act's provisions to claims pending before VA on December 16, 2003, would produce a “genuinely retroactive” effect. For the reasons stated below, we believe that it would. Therefore, VA will not apply the Act's amendments to claims for 38 U.S.C. 5121 benefits pending before VA on December 16, 2003. Determining whether applying changes in the law would produce a genuinely retroactive effect is a complex undertaking. However, as discussed in VAOPGCPREC 7-2003: [S]tatutes or regulations that restrict the bases for entitlement to a benefit might have disfavored retroactive effects as applied to some claims that were pending when they took effect. For example, if a veteran was entitled to benefits based on the law existing when he or she filed an application with VA, and a restrictive change in the governing law occurs before VA adjudicates the claim, application of the new restriction might retroactively extinguish the claimant's previously existing right to benefits for periods before the new law took effect. In those circumstances, *Landgraf* [v. *USI Film Products,* 511 U.S. 244 (1994),] indicates that the intervening restriction would not apply in determining the claimant's rights for such periods. We believe that these principles control the question at hand and call for application of 38 U.S.C. 5121 as it existed prior to the Act to claims pending on December 16, 2003. VA has not contested the holding in *Bonny* and we thus conclude that *Bonny* states the governing interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 5121 prior to the amendments made by the Act. Applying the technical amendment to section 5121(a) made by the Act to pending claims would limit the amount of benefits some claimants could receive under section 5121(a) subsequent to the *Bonny* decision and prior to enactment of the Act. That is, a claimant who had a claim for “benefits awarded but unpaid” pending on December 16, 2003, would be limited to two years of benefits because the technical amendment of the Act eliminated the *Bonny* division of section 5121(a) benefits and the removal of the two-year limitation applies only in cases in which the deceased beneficiary died on or after December 16, 2003. We believe this would constitute a genuine retroactive effect. We propose to amend § 3.1000 to reflect the changes to section 5121 made by the Act. As this proposed regulation will be published more than one year after the effective dates prescribed in the Act, we propose not to include information regarding the effective dates in the regulation itself. If the beneficiary died prior to December 16, 2003, and a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 5121 was pending as of December 16, 2003, the claim will be adjudicated under the provisions of § 3.1000, and the VA regulations cited therein, in effect on December 16, 2003. If the beneficiary died prior to December 16, 2003, but VA received a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 5121 on or after December 16, 2003, the claim will be adjudicated under the proposed provisions of § 3.1000, except that the two-year limitation will continue to apply. This is because the basis for the *Bonny* court's interpretation of 38 U.S.C. 5121(a) is no longer viable as of December 16, 2003, but the removal of the two-year limitation is effective only where the beneficiary died on or after December 16, 2003. To summarize, there are now three potential groups of claimants for accrued benefits under current law, whose eligibility varies as described on this table: Deceased beneficiary died prior to December 16, 2003 Claim pending on December 16, 2003 Claim received on or after December 16, 2003 Deceased beneficiary died on or after December 16, 2003 Does the one-year time limit to file the claim apply?
(1)Yes for accrued benefits Yes for accrued benefits Yes for accrued benefits
(2)No for benefits awarded but unpaid In this situation “accrued benefits” includes benefits awarded but unpaid In this situation “accrued benefits” includes benefits awarded but unpaid. Does the two-year limitation on the benefit-payable period apply?
(1)Yes for accrued benefits Yes for accrued benefits No.
(2)No for benefits awarded but unpaid In this situation “accrued benefits” includes benefits awarded but unpaid This limitation does not apply if a deceased beneficiary died on or after December 16, 2003. Based on the statutory changes described above, we propose to amend § 3.1000(a) by deleting the comma between the phrases “to which a payee was entitled at his death under existing ratings or decisions” and “or those based on evidence in the file at date of death”. We also propose to delete the phrase “for a period not to exceed 2 years prior to the last date of entitlement as provided in § 3.500(g).” We note that 38 CFR 3.500(g) addresses the effective date of a discontinuance or reduction based on the death of the beneficiary. Because § 3.500(g) is only used in § 3.1000 regarding the two year period, which was repealed by section 104(a) of the Act, and is not applicable otherwise to § 3.1000, we propose to delete the reference to § 3.500(g). We also propose to change the outdated phrase “his death” in current § 3.1000(a) to “his or her death”. Section 104(b) of the Act also amended section 5121 to provide that surviving parents may claim accrued benefits upon the death of a child who had claimed benefits under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18. Under section 104(d) of the Act, this amendment applies when the child dies on or after December 16, 2003. To ensure consistency with the statute, we propose to include this new provision in § 3.1000. We propose to add this provision as a new § 3.1000(a)(4), and redesignate current § 3.1000(a)(4) as (a)(5), because current § 3.1000(a)(4) is a catch-all default provision, and appropriately should be the last provision in paragraph (a). The Federal Circuit clarified another aspect of benefits under 38 U.S.C. 5121 in *Jones* v. *West* , 136 F.3d 1296, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Reading [38 U.S.C.] 5101 and 5121 together compels the conclusion that, in order for a surviving spouse to be entitled to accrued benefits, the veteran must have had a claim pending at the time of his death for such benefits or else be entitled to them under an existing rating or decision. Section 5101(a) is a clause of general applicability and mandates that a claim must be filed in order for any type of benefit to accrue or be paid. Therefore, we additionally propose to amend the definition of “[e]vidence in the file at date of death” in § 3.1000(d)(4) to “evidence in VA's possession on or before the date of the beneficiary's death, even if such evidence was not physically located in the VA claims folder on or before the date of death, in support of a claim for VA benefits pending on the date of death.” We also propose to define “claim for VA benefits pending on the date of death” in a new § 3.1000(d)(5) as “a claim filed with VA that had not been finally adjudicated by VA on or before the date of death.” This statement means that VA would consider a filed claim to have been pending on the date of death, if it had not been adjudicated, or, if the claim had been adjudicated, the time to appeal had not expired or there was no final decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board). We additionally propose to state in new § 3.1000(d)(5) that a claim may include a deceased beneficiary's claim to reopen a finally disallowed claim based upon new and material evidence or a deceased beneficiary's claim of clear and unmistakable error in a prior rating or decision. We note the definition in new § 3.1000(d)(5) does not preclude a survivor from filing an accrued benefits claim based on a decedent's claim that had been judicially appealed. In that case, the CAVC typically vacates the BVA decision in order to preserve potential accrued benefits claims. For example, the CAVC noted the following in *Sagnella* v. *Principi* , 15 Vet. App. 242, 246 (2001): This Court held in *Landicho* [v. *Brown* , 7 Vet. App. 42 (1994),] that the appropriate remedy [when a veteran dies while his or her BVA decision is on appeal] is to vacate the Board decision from which the appeal was taken and to dismiss the appeal. *Landicho* , 7 Vet. App. at 54. This ensures that the Board decision and the underlying VA regional office
(RO)decision(s) will have no preclusive effect in the adjudication of any accrued-benefits claims derived from the veteran's entitlements. It also nullifies the previous merits adjudication by the RO because that decision was subsumed in the Board decision. Finally, section 5121(a) authorizes payment to survivors only of periodic monetary benefits that were “due and unpaid” to a deceased beneficiary. Because VA is prohibited by 38 U.S.C. 5304(c) from paying compensation or pension to a veteran for any period in which the veteran received active service pay, no compensation or pension could have been “due” to a veteran for any period for which he or she actually received active service pay. Accordingly, for purposes of determining the amount of benefits payable to a survivor under section 5121(a), compensation or pension benefits could not have been “due and unpaid” to the veteran for any period for which the veteran received active service pay. *See* VAOPGCPREC 10-2004 (2004). Therefore, we propose to add a new paragraph
(i)to § 3.1000 to provide this explanation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would not affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action because it may raise novel legal and policy issues under Executive Order 12866. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this proposal are 64.102, Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents, 64.104, Pension for Non-Service- Connected Disability for Veterans, 64.105, Pension to Veterans Surviving Spouses, and Children, 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability, and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam. Approved: March 17, 2006. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 3 (subpart A) as follows: PART 3—ADJUDICATION Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 3.1000 as follows: a. In paragraph
(a)introductory text, remove “at his death” and add, in its place, “at his or her death”; remove “decisions, or” and add, in its place, “decisions or”; and remove “for a period not to exceed 2 years prior to the last date of entitlement as provided in § 3.500(g)”. b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph (a)(5). c. Add a new paragraph (a)(4). d. In paragraph (d)(4), add “, in support of a claim for VA benefits pending on the date of death” immediately following “before the date of death”. e. Add paragraph (d)(5). f. Add paragraph (i). The additions read as follows: § 3.1000 Entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 5121 to benefits due and unpaid upon death of a beneficiary.
(a)* * *
(4)Upon the death of a child claiming benefits under chapter 18 of this title, to the surviving parents.
(d)* * *
(5)*Claim for VA benefits pending on the date of death* means a claim filed with VA that had not been finally adjudicated by VA on or before the date of death. Such a claim includes a deceased beneficiary's claim to reopen a finally disallowed claim based upon new and material evidence or a deceased beneficiary's claim of clear and unmistakable error in a prior rating or decision. Any new and material evidence must have been in VA's possession on or before the date of the beneficiary's death.
(i)*Active service pay.* Benefits awarded under this section do not include compensation or pension benefits for any period for which the veteran received active service pay. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5304(c)) [FR Doc. E6-10228 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P 71 125 Thursday, June 29, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 23, 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)720-8681. 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. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* 7 CFR Part 1744-C, Advance and Disbursement of Funds—Telecommunications. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0023. *Summary of Collection:* Section 201 of the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936 authorizes the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)to make loans for the purpose of providing telephone service to the widest practicable number of rural subscribers. A borrower requesting loan advances must submit RUS Form 481, “Financial Requirement Statement”. Along with the Form 481 the borrower must also submit a description of the advances and upon request copies of backup documentation relating to the transactions. The information is used to determine what projects the contracts listed on the Form relate to. Within a reasonable amount of time, funds are advanced to the borrower for the purposes specified in the statement of purposes. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Form 481 is used by RUS to record and control transactions in the construction fund. RUS will collect information and verify that the funds advanced are related directly to loan purposes. If the information were not collected, RUS would not have any control over how loan funds are spent or a record of the balance to be advanced. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 177. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 1,223. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* 7 CFR Part 1703-H, Deferments of RUS Loan Payments for Rural Development Projects. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0097. *Summary of Collection:* Subsection
(b)of section 12 of the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 912), a Rural Utilities Service
(RUS)electric or telephone borrower may defer the payment of principal and interest on any insured or direct loan made under the RE Act invest the deferred amounts in rural development projects. The Deferment program is used to encourage borrowers to invest in and promote rural development and rural job creation projects that are based on sound economic and financial analyses. *Need and Use of the Information:* RUS will collect information to determine eligibility; specific purposes for which the deferment amount will be utilized; the term of the deferment the borrower will receive; the cost of the total project and degree of participation in the financing from other sources; verification that the purposes will not violate limitations established in 7 CFR 1703-H. If the information were not collected, RUS would be unable to determine eligibility for a project. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit; Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 1. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 35. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 06-5802 Filed 6-28-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 21
Traces to 21 documents
21 references not yet in our index
  • 26 CFR 1
  • 33 CFR 100
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 33 USC 1233
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 33 CFR 117.37(a)
  • Pub. L. 102-587
  • 106 Stat. 5039
  • 38 CFR 3
  • Pub. L. 108-183
  • 341 F.3d 1327
  • 511 U.S. 244
  • 136 F.3d 1296
  • 44 USC 3501-3521
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 7 CFR 1744
  • 7 CFR 1703
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Correction
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 605
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 272
C.F.R.§ 117.720
C.F.R.§ 117.721
F. App'x341 F.3d 1327
SCOTUS511 U.S. 244
F. App'x136 F.3d 1296
Cites 42 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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