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 · 2006-07-20 · Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking

30,847 words·~140 min read·/register/2006/07/20/06-6363

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 139 Thursday, July 20, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision 12 CFR Parts 563b and 575 [No. 2006-29] RIN 1550-AC07 Stock Benefit Plans in Mutual-to-Stock Conversions and Mutual Holding Company Structures AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS)is proposing to clarify its regulations regarding stock benefit plans established after mutual-to-stock conversions or in mutual holding company structures. In addition, OTS proposes to reduce the voting requirements for the adoption of stock benefit plans in mutual holding company structures and to make several other minor changes to the regulations governing mutual-to-stock conversions and minority stock issuances. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by No. 2006-29, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: regs.comments@ots.treas.gov.* Please include No. 2006-29 in the subject line of the message, and include your name and telephone number in the message. • *Fax:*
(202)906-6518. • *Mail:* Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention: No. 2006-29. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, Attention: Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Attention: No. 2006-29. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to the OTS Internet site at: *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received go to *http://www.ots.treas.gov/pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1.* In addition, you may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call
(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov,* or send a facsimile transmission to
(202)906-7755. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald W. Dwyer,
(202)906-6414, Director, Applications, Examinations and Supervision—Operations; Aaron B. Kahn,
(202)906-6263, Assistant Chief Counsel, Business Transactions Division or David A. Permut,
(202)906-7505, Senior Attorney, Business Transactions Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Savings associations that propose to convert to stock form are subject to the OTS mutual-to-stock conversion regulations, 12 CFR part 563b (Conversion Regulations). Mutual holding companies
(MHCs)are subject to OTS regulations at 12 CFR part 575 (MHC Regulations). Subsidiary mutual holding companies (Subsidiary MHCs) and savings associations (collectively, Subsidiary Companies) in MHC structures that propose to issue common stock in a minority stock issuance (Minority Stock Issuance) 1 are subject to both the Conversion Regulations and the MHC Regulations, including the provisions therein pertaining to stock benefit plans. 2 1 In a Minority Stock Issuance, the Subsidiary Company issues stock to entities other than the parent MHC. The parent MHC must hold more than 50 percent of the common stock of the Subsidiary MHC after the Minority Stock Issuance. See 12 U.S.C. 1467a(o)(8)(B) and 12 CFR 575.7(a)(5). 2 The MHC Regulations currently include four separate provisions stating that the Conversion Regulations apply in the context of stock issuances by subsidiaries of MHCs. *See,* 12 CFR 575.7(a), 575.7(b)(1), 575.7(d)(6)(ii), and 575.7(e)(2006). OTS last changed the provisions of the Conversion Regulations addressing stock benefit plans in mutual-to-stock conversions or MHC structures in 2002 (2002 amendments). 3 The 2002 amendments revised the MHC Regulations to, among other things, permit the amount of stock includable in stock benefit plans established in MHC structures to be set as if 49.0 percent of the stock was issued to minority shareholders, and added a requirement that certain plans not exceed 25 percent of the stock actually offered in the Minority Stock Issuance. The 25 percent limitation was intended to ensure that insiders did not receive a disproportionate share of small Minority Stock Issuances. 3 See 67 FR 52010, at 52014 (August 9, 2002). OTS believes that confusion exists regarding the application of the stock benefit plan provisions in the Conversion Regulations and the MHC Regulations. OTS therefore proposes to clarify its regulations on stock benefit plans currently found at 12 CFR 563b.500 and 575.8. These clarifications are not intended to change existing OTS policies regarding stock benefit plans. In addition, OTS proposes to reduce regulatory burden by adjusting the voting requirements for the adoption of stock benefit plans in MHC structures. Also, OTS proposes to allow lower maximum purchase limitations in mutual-to-stock conversion offerings (Conversion Offerings) and in Minority Stock Issuances. I. Stock Benefit Plans OTS has permitted the establishment of three types of stock benefit plans in connection with mutual-to-stock conversions and Minority Stock Issuances. These stock benefit plans include:
(i)Employee Stock Ownership Plans and similar plans (ESOPs), which must be tax-qualified; 4
(ii)Stock Option Plans (Option Plans), which are typically non-tax-qualified; and
(iii)Management Recognition Plans
(MRPs)(sometimes referred to as Retention and Recognition Plans), which are also typically non-tax-qualified. 4 These plans include 401(k) plans and plans defined at 12 CFR 563b.25 as tax-qualified employee stock benefit plans. Because the only types of tax-qualified plans established in mutual-to-stock conversions in the recent past have been ESOPs, OTS proposes to define the tax-qualified plans as ESOPs, in order to simplify the regulations. Section 563b.500 of the Conversion Regulations sets forth certain limitations for stock benefit plans during the year following a Conversion Offering. For example, ESOPs and MRPs are generally limited to holding, in the aggregate, no more than ten percent of the number of shares issued in a mutual-to-stock conversion (§ 563b.500(a)(4)). However, if the converting institution has at least ten percent tangible capital following the completion of the conversion, then ESOPs and MRPs are permitted to hold up to an aggregate of 12 percent of the number of shares issued in the conversion (§ 563b.500(a)(4)). In addition, the Conversion Regulations (§ 563b.500(a)(3)) restrict MRPs to three percent of the number of shares issued in the conversion. If the institution has at least ten percent tangible capital following the completion of the conversion, however, MRPs may encompass four percent of the number of shares issued in the conversion. It has been OTS's experience that most converting associations implement an eight percent ESOP and a four percent MRP when they have at least ten percent tangible capital after the conversion. In addition, converting associations may offer a separate Option Plan of up to ten percent of the number of shares issued in the conversion (§ 563b.500(a)(2)). In MHC structures, Subsidiary Companies offer less than 50 percent of their stock to the public. This arrangement creates smaller stock benefit plans for companies in the MHC form. In order to make the MHC form of organization more reasonable, OTS expanded the permissible size of stock benefit plans in the 2002 amendments. 5 Prior to the 2002 amendments, the maximum size of plans was set in relation to the percentage of stock actually offered in the Minority Stock Issuance. For example, if the Subsidiary Company issued only 30 percent of its stock in the Minority Stock Issuance, it would have been restricted to an Option Plan encompassing three percent of total shares outstanding (ten percent of 30 percent) and a combined ESOP and MRP encompassing an aggregate of three percent of the total shares outstanding (or 3.6 percent, if the association's tangible capital exceeded ten percent). In the 2002 amendment, OTS set the maximum size for stock benefit plans as if the Minority Stock Issuance had been 49.0 percent of the Subsidiary Company's stock, regardless of the actual percentage of shares issued in the Minority Stock Issuance. 6 5 67 FR 52010, at 52014. 6 Where a Subsidiary Company sets the size of a stock benefit plan as if it engaged in a 49 percent Minority Stock Issuance, a plan of the same type established in any second-step mutual-to-stock conversion of the relevant MHC must be based on not more than 51 percent of the resulting publicly held association's or holding company's issued and outstanding stock, following the consummation of the second-step conversion. See 12 CFR 563b.500(a). The stock issued and outstanding upon consummation of the second-step conversion includes both the stock issued in accordance with the mutual-to-stock conversion priorities for the second-step conversion and the shares issued in exchange for the shares held by the Subsidiary Company's minority stockholders. If the Subsidiary Company sets the size of the stock benefit plan based on a percentage less than 49 percent (such as the actual percentage issued in the Minority Stock Issuance), then the same principle applies. For example, if a Subsidiary Company established plans based on an actual 40 percent Minority Stock Issuance, then the plans established in connection with the second-step conversion must be based on not more than 60 percent of the shares to be issued in the second-step conversion. This is the case regardless of whether, after the Minority Stock Issuance, the Subsidiary Company repurchased shares of its stock (and therefore more than 60 percent of the shares that will be issued and outstanding upon consummation of the second-step conversion would be issued in accordance with the mutual-to-stock conversion priorities). The 2002 amendment also added an overall limitation, to prevent issuing an excessive amount of stock to management, particularly in small offerings. That restriction limited the aggregate amount of stock issued to all Option Plans and MRPs (but excluding ESOPs) in connection with any Minority Stock Issuance and all prior Minority Stock Issuances, to 25 percent of the outstanding stock of the association held by persons other than the parent MHC. 7 OTS has discovered that some persons incorrectly believed that the 25 percent limit was the only limit on the aggregate size of all Option Plans and MRPs, rather than one of several distinct limitations. 7 For example, the overall limitation for a 28 percent Minority Stock Issuance would be no more than seven percent for the Option Plan and MRP (25 percent of 28 percent equals seven percent) for the proposed issuance, plus all prior issuances. OTS believes that some confusion exists as to how the various limitations in the Conversion and MHC Regulations interact with each other. Therefore, OTS proposes to clarify several of the existing regulations at sections 563b.500, 575.7, and 575.8 to eliminate any confusion. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, OTS believes that it is appropriate to adjust the shareholder vote requirements for the adoption of benefit plans in MHC structures. A. Proposed Rule Changes at § 563b.500 Regarding Stock Benefit Plans OTS proposes to clarify 12 CFR 563b.500 by referring to the specific type of plan addressed (that is, an ESOP, Option Plan, or MRP), rather than referring to plans in terms of their tax-qualified or non-tax-qualified nature. OTS proposes to revise § 563b.500(a)(1) to clarify that a shareholder vote is not required to establish an ESOP. OTS also proposes to move the provision addressing votes on Option Plans and MRPs in the context of MHCs from § 563b.500(a)(7) to the MHC Regulations, because it is more appropriate to locate provisions dealing exclusively with MHC structures in the MHC Regulations. B. Proposed Rule Changes at § 575.7 Regarding Minority Stock Issuances Section 575.7 sets forth the general requirements for Minority Stock Issuances by Subsidiary Companies. Section 575.7 provides, in four separate places, that some or all of the requirements of the Conversion Regulations are applicable to Minority Stock Issuances. OTS proposes to streamline the MHC Regulations by removing two of those references. OTS proposes to retain the general provision at § 575.7(e), which would be redesignated as § 575.7(d), stating that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Conversion Regulations apply to Minority Stock Issuances unless clearly inapplicable. However, OTS proposes to add language to this section similar to the language in current § 575.7(b)(1) clarifying that OTS makes the determination whether a section is clearly inapplicable. OTS also proposes to relocate certain language from § 575.7(b)(1) to proposed § 575.7(d). The language in question states that for purposes of the provision the term “conversion” as it appears in the Conversion Regulations, refers to the Minority Stock Issuance, and the term “converted or converting savings association” as it appears in the Conversion Regulations, refers to the Subsidiary Company making the Minority Stock Issuance. In light of these proposed changes, OTS proposes to eliminate the cross-references at §§ 575.7(a) 8 and 575.7(b)(1). OTS proposes to keep the reference at § 575.7(d)(6)(ii), however, because the cross-reference permits an applicant to engage in a Minority Stock Issuance that does not meet the mutual-to-stock conversion priorities if the applicant demonstrates that a non-conforming issuance is appropriate. 8 Eliminating the cross-reference in § 575.7(a) does not remove the requirement that MHCs must file business plans in connection with Minority Stock Issuances. Under proposed § 575.7(d), all procedural and substantive requirements in the Conversion Regulations apply to Minority Stock Issuances, unless clearly inapplicable. OTS proposes to revise and relocate § 575.7(b)(2). This section provides that, unless OTS determines otherwise, the limitations on the minimum and maximum amounts of the estimated price range required by 12 CFR 563b.330 do not apply. OTS has applied the limitations in 12 CFR 563b.330 in all Minority Stock Issuances, except in cases where the issuance involved only stock benefit plans or an acquisition. Accordingly, OTS proposes to revise this section to state that § 563b.330 will apply to Minority Stock Issuances, unless OTS determines otherwise, and to recodify this provision, as modified, at § 575.7(a)(9). OTS proposes to eliminate 12 CFR 575.7(b)(3), which requires stock offering materials to disclose the amount of any discount on minority stock, and how the amount of the discount was determined. The general securities offering disclosure requirements, which require disclosure of material information, are sufficient to address the issue of disclosure of the amount and reasons for any discount on minority stock. C. Proposed Rule Changes at § 575.8 Regarding Stock Benefit Plans Section 575.8 contains the current limitations for stock benefit plans in MHC structures. OTS proposes to clarify the § 575.8 provisions pertaining to stock benefit plans in several respects. First, as with § 563b.500, OTS proposes to replace the references to tax-qualified and non-tax-qualified benefit plans in § 575.8(a) with references to a specific type of plan (that is, the ESOP, Option Plan, or MRP). Second, OTS proposes to include language in § 575.8 stating that the quantitative limitations regarding the size of ESOPs, Option Plans, and MRPs set forth in § 575.8 supersede the related quantitative limits in proposed sections 563b.500(a)(2) through 563b.500(a)(4). This change should reduce regulatory burden by eliminating the need for Subsidiary Companies to consider both the MHC Regulations and the Conversion Regulations to determine the permissible size of certain stock benefit plans. Third, in order to provide clarity and to reduce existing regulatory burdens, OTS proposes to amend § 575.8 to state that the restrictions set forth in proposed sections 563b.500(a)(4) through 563b.500(a)(14) apply in the context of a Minority Stock Issuance for only one year after the Subsidiary Company engages in a Minority Stock Issuance that is conducted in accordance with the purchase priorities set forth in the Conversion Regulations. Each such Minority Stock Issuance would start a new one-year period. In order to further clarify the MHC Regulations and to eliminate certain unintended inconsistencies between the Conversion Regulations and the MHC Regulations, OTS is making three additional changes. First, the Conversion Regulations (at current § 563b.500(a)(3) and proposed § 563b.500(a)(3)(ii)) include a separate limitation regarding the size of MRPs. Notwithstanding the lack of a specific provision in the MHC Regulations addressing MRPs, OTS has consistently applied such a requirement in the context of Minority Stock Issuances, by applying the plan limits in the Conversion Regulations to Minority Stock Issuances. 9 Therefore, OTS proposes to include a corresponding limitation on the size of MRPs in § 575.8. 9 Because OTS proposes to simplify the MHC Regulations to provide that institutions proposing Minority Stock Issuances would need to look only at § 575.8 to determine the permissible size of their stock benefit plans, repeating this restriction, and the restrictions described below, in the MHC Regulations is necessary. Second, the Conversion Regulations (at current § 563b.500(a)(4), and proposed § 563b.500(a)(3)(i)) include a limitation on the combined size of the ESOP and MRP. The current MHC Regulations do not include an aggregate limitation on ESOPs and MRPs. However, OTS has consistently applied such a restriction to Minority Stock Issuances, based on the cross-reference to the Conversion Regulations. In order to conform the MHC Regulations to the Conversion Regulations, OTS proposes to revise the MHC Regulations to explicitly include an aggregate limitation on ESOPs and MRPs. In addition to aggregate limitations on ESOPs and MRPs, OTS proposes to retain the existing aggregate limitation on the size of the Option Plans and MRPs set forth at § 575.8(a)(9) of the MHC Regulations. Third, the Conversion Regulations impose a higher limitation on the size of MRPs and a higher aggregate limitation on the size of ESOPs and MRPs if the association in question has tangible capital exceeding ten percent. Again, OTS consistently has applied this provision of the Conversion Regulations to Minority Stock Issuances. The MHC Regulations do not include a corresponding provision, and OTS proposes to amend the MHC Regulations to eliminate this disparity. Furthermore, OTS believes that the presence of language addressing individual purchase limitations (and those involving individuals and their associates) in sections 575.8(a)(3) and (a)(4) is confusing. These provisions, to the extent they pertain to individuals and their associates, are unnecessary because the Conversion Regulations provide the necessary limitations. 10 In addition, the usefulness of such provisions in the MHC regulations is limited, because the limitations in §§ 575.8(a)(3) and (a)(4) do not include shares acquired in the secondary market. Accordingly, OTS proposes to eliminate the reference to purchases by individuals and their associates presently set forth in sections 575.8(a)(3) and (a)(4) from the MHC Regulations. 10 See 12 CFR 563b.370 (2006). In addition, OTS is clarifying sections 575.8(a)(3) through (a)(9) to make it clear that the limitations on benefit plans will be set in relation to the stock or equity outstanding at the close of the most recent Minority Stock Issuance made in conjunction with the promulgation of a benefit plan. Also, in sections 575.8(a)(7), OTS is clarifying that, when a plan is adopted or modified more than one year after a Minority Stock Issuance, the limitations in sections 575.8(a)(3) through (a)(6) may be exceeded to the extent that:
(i)Awards in excess of those limitations are made with stock purchased in the secondary market; and
(ii)such purchases take place at least one year after the most recent Minority Stock Issuance that is made in substantial conformity with the purchase priorities set out in part 563b. Similarly, in § 575.8(a)(8)(ii), OTS proposes to clarify that when a plan is adopted or modified more than one year after a Minority Stock Issuance, the limitations in § 575.8(a)(8)(i) may be exceeded to the extent that:
(i)Awards in excess of those limitations are made with stock purchased in the secondary market; and
(ii)such purchases take place at least one year after the most recent Minority Stock Issuance that is made in substantial conformity with the purchase priorities set out in part 563b. In addition, in § 575.8(a)(9), OTS proposes to clarify that the limitation therein presents a separate limitation on Option Plans and MRPs that applies to each Minority Stock Issuance. However, that limitation does not require reductions in otherwise permissible awards under an existing plan when there is a subsequent Minority Stock Issuance where the excess results from intervening purchases by individuals in the secondary market. As mentioned previously, OTS proposes to move the last sentence in current § 563b.500(a)(7), pertaining to mutual holding companies, to new § 575.8(c). This sentence currently requires that a majority of the outstanding minority shares approve any Option Plan and any MRP (in addition to the requirement that a majority of all shares approve any Option Plan and any MRP). Because OTS believes the current provisions are unduly restrictive, OTS proposes two changes to the minority vote requirement proposed at § 575.8(c). First, OTS proposes to revise the provision to require a vote of the minority shareholders only during the first year after a Minority Stock Issuance that was conducted in accordance with the mutual-to-stock conversion subscription priorities. Second, OTS proposes to revise the provision to require approval (during the first year after a Minority Stock Issuance) by a majority of the minority shares voting on the issue of adoption of the plan, rather than a majority of the outstanding minority shares. II. Maximum Purchase Limitation OTS proposes to increase an institution's choices regarding maximum purchase limitations. Section 563b.385 addresses maximum purchase limitations for subscriptions in mutual-to-stock conversions. Currently, converting savings associations are permitted to set a maximum purchase limitation between one and five percent of the stock sold. OTS has received many requests to waive the purchase limitations. This is particularly appropriate in the case of larger offerings, where a one percent limit would constitute a very large investment. Because OTS's policy is to achieve as widespread a distribution of stock as possible (see § 563b.395), the request for a waiver to set a smaller maximum purchase limitation is often granted. OTS proposes to amend this section to permit smaller purchase limitations. III. Solicitation of Comments A. Solicitation of Comments on the Proposed Amendments OTS is requesting comment on all aspects of the proposed regulation. Specifically OTS seeks comment on:
(1)Does the proposed regulation accomplish its stated purposes?
(2)Does the proposed regulation eliminate ambiguities regarding stock benefit plans in mutual-to-stock conversions?
(3)Does the proposed regulation create any ambiguities that were not present in the current regulation?
(4)Does the proposed regulation impose unnecessary regulatory burdens? B. Solicitation of Comments Regarding the Use of Plain Language Section 722 of GLBA requires Federal banking agencies to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. OTS invites comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example:
(1)Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could we better organize it?
(2)Do we clearly state the requirements in the rule? If not, how could we state the rule more clearly?
(3)Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, what language requires clarification?
(4)Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the rule easier to understand? V. Regulatory Findings A. Paperwork Reduction Act OTS has determined that this proposed rule does not involve a change to collections of information previously approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Executive Order 12866 The Director of OTS has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601), the Director certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would make certain changes that should reduce burdens on all savings associations, including small institutions. First, the proposed rule addresses the confusion surrounding compliance with OTS regulations regarding stock benefit plans in connection with mutual-to-stock conversions and Minority Stock Issuances. These clarifications will reduce the burden of complying with the OTS regulations on stock benefit plans. Second, OTS has reduced the voting requirement to adopt stock benefit plans in MHC structures, which reduces burden on institutions establishing stock benefit plans. Finally, the proposed rule will reduce burden by broadening the purchase limitations, thereby promoting a wider distribution of stock in a Conversion Offering or Minority Stock Issuance. All of the proposed changes are minor and should not have a significant impact on small institutions. Accordingly, OTS has determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 OTS has determined that the proposed rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments or by the private sector of $100 million or more and that a budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act). The proposed rule would make certain changes that should reduce burdens on savings associations. First, the proposed rule clarifies OTS regulations regarding stock benefit plans in connection with mutual-to-stock conversions and Minority Stock Issuances, which should reduce the burden of complying with the OTS regulations on stock benefit plans. Second, OTS has reduced the voting requirement to adopt stock benefit plans in MHC structures, which reduces burden on institutions establishing stock benefit plans. Finally, the proposed rule will reduce burden by broadening the purchase limitations, to promote a wider distribution of stock in a Conversion Offering or Minority Stock Issuance. All of the proposed changes are minor and should not have a significant impact on small institutions. Accordingly, a budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 563b Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities. 12 CFR Part 575 Administrative practice and procedure, Capital, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities. Accordingly, the Office of Thrift Supervision proposes to amend Chapter V of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. PART 563b—CONVERSIONS FROM MUTUAL TO STOCK FORM 1. The authority citation for part 563b continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 2901; 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78w. § 563b.385 [Amended] 2. Amend § 563b.385(a) by removing the phrase “between one percent and” and adding the words “up to” in place thereof. 3. Revise § 563b.500 to read as follows: § 563b.500. What management stock benefit plans may I implement?
(a)During the 12 months after your conversion, you may implement a stock option plan (Option Plan), an employee stock ownership plan or other tax-qualified employee stock benefit plan (collectively, ESOP), and a management recognition plan (MRP), provided you meet all of the following requirements.
(1)You disclose the plans in your proxy statement and offering circular and indicate in your offering circular that there will be a separate shareholder vote on the Option Plan and the MRP at least six months after the conversion. No shareholder vote is required to implement the ESOP. Your ESOP must be tax-qualified.
(2)Your Option Plan does not encompass more than ten percent of the number of shares that you issued in the conversion. (3)(i) Your ESOP and MRP do not encompass, in the aggregate, more than ten percent of the number of shares that you issued in the conversion. If you have tangible capital of ten percent or more following the conversion, OTS may permit your ESOP and MRP to encompass, in the aggregate, up to 12 percent of the number of shares issued in the conversion; and
(ii)Your MRP does not encompass more than three percent of the number of shares that you issued in the conversion. If you have tangible capital of ten percent or more after the conversion, OTS may permit your MRP to encompass up to four percent of the number of shares that you issued in the conversion.
(4)No individual receives more than 25 percent of the shares under your ESOP, MRP, or Option Plan.
(5)Your directors who are not your officers do not receive more than five percent of the shares of your MRP or Option Plan individually, or 30 percent of any such plan in the aggregate.
(6)Your shareholders approve each of the Option Plan and the MRP by a majority of the total votes eligible to be cast at a duly called meeting before you establish or implement the plan. You may not hold this meeting until six months after your conversion.
(7)When you distribute proxies or related material to shareholders in connection with the vote on a plan, you state that the plan complies with OTS regulations and that OTS does not endorse or approve the plan in any way. You may not make any written or oral representations to the contrary.
(8)You do not grant stock options at less than the market price at the time of grant.
(9)You do not fund the Option Plan or the MRP at the time of the conversion.
(10)Your plan does not begin to vest earlier than one year after shareholders approve the plan, and does not vest at a rate exceeding 20 percent per year.
(11)Your plan permits accelerated vesting only for disability or death, or if you undergo a change of control.
(12)Your plan provides that your executive officers or directors must exercise or forfeit their options in the event the institution becomes critically undercapitalized (as defined in § 565.4 of this chapter), is subject to OTS enforcement action, or receives a capital directive under § 565.7 of this chapter.
(13)You file a copy of the proposed Option Plan or MRP with OTS and certify to OTS that the plan approved by the shareholders is the same plan that you filed with, and disclosed in, the proxy materials distributed to shareholders in connection with the vote on the plan.
(14)You file the plan and the certification with OTS within five calendar days after your shareholders approve the plan.
(b)You may provide dividend equivalent rights or dividend adjustment rights to allow for stock splits or other adjustments to your stock in your ESOP, MRP, and Option Plan.
(c)The restrictions in paragraph
(a)do not apply to plans implemented more than 12 months after the conversion, provided that materials pertaining to any shareholder vote regarding such plans are not distributed within the 12 months after the conversion. If a plan adopted in conformity with paragraph
(a)is amended more than 12 months following your conversion, your shareholders must ratify any material deviations to the requirements in paragraph
(a)of this section. PART 575—MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANIES 4. The authority citation for part 575 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1828, 2901. § 575.7 [Amended] 5. Amend § 575.7(a) by removing the first sentence. 6. In § 575.7(b), redesignate paragraph (b)(2) as (a)(9) and remove the word “not” in that paragraph, remove the remaining text in paragraph (b), redesignate paragraphs (c), (d), and
(e)as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), and revise newly designated paragraph
(d)to read as follows:
(d)*Procedural and substantive requirements.* The procedural and substantive requirements of 12 CFR part 563b shall apply to all mutual holding company stock issuances under this section, unless clearly inapplicable, as determined by OTS. For purposes of this paragraph (d), the term *conversion* as it appears in the provisions of part 563b of this chapter shall refer to the stock issuance, and the term *converted* or *converting savings association* shall refer to the savings association undertaking the stock issuance. 7. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(9) of § 575.8 to read as follows: § 575.8 Contents of stock issuance plans.
(a)Mandatory provisions. * * *
(3)Provide that all employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) must not encompass, in the aggregate, more than either 4.9 percent of the outstanding shares of the savings association's common stock or 4.9 percent of the savings association's stockholders' equity at the close the proposed issuance.
(4)Provide that all ESOPs and management recognition plans
(MRPs)must not encompass, in the aggregate, more than either 4.9 percent of the outstanding shares of the savings association's common stock or 4.9 percent of the savings association's stockholders' equity at the close of the proposed issuance. However, if the savings association's tangible capital equals at least ten percent at the time of implementation of the plan, OTS may permit such ESOPs and MRPs to encompass, in the aggregate, up to 5.88 percent of the outstanding common stock or stockholders' equity at the close of the proposed issuance.
(5)Provide that all MRPs must not encompass, in the aggregate, more than either 1.47 percent of the common stock of the savings association or 1.47 percent of the savings association's stockholders' equity at the close of the proposed issuance. However, if the savings association's tangible capital is at least ten percent at the time of implementation of the plan, OTS may permit MRPs to encompass, in the aggregate, up to 1.96 percent of the outstanding shares of the savings association's common stock or 1.96 percent of the savings association's stockholders' equity at the close of the proposed issuance.
(6)Provide that all stock option plans (Option Plans) must not encompass, in the aggregate, more than either 4.9 percent of the savings association's outstanding common stock at the close of the proposed issuance or 4.9 percent of the savings association's stockholders' equity at the close of the proposed issuance.
(7)A plan modified or adopted no earlier than one year after the close of the proposed issuance, or any subsequent issuance that is made in substantial conformity with the purchase priorities set forth in Part 563b, may exceed the percentage limitations contained in paragraphs 3 through 6 (plan expansion), subject to the following two requirements. First, all common stock awarded in connection with any plan expansion must be acquired for such awards in the secondary market. Second, such acquisitions must begin no earlier than when such plan expansion is permitted to be made. (8)(i) Provide that the aggregate amount of common stock that may be encompassed under all Option Plans and MRPs, or acquired by all insiders of the association and associates of insiders of the association, must not exceed the following percentages of common stock or stockholders' equity of the savings association, held by persons other than the savings association's mutual holding company parent at the close of the proposed issuance: Institution size Officer and director purchases (percent) $50,000,000 or less 35 $50,000,001-100,000,000 34 $100,000,001-150,000,000 33 $150,000,001-200,000,000 32 $200,000,001-250,000,000 31 $250,000,001-300,000,000 30 $300,000,001-350,000,000 29 $350,000,001-400,000,000 28 $400,000,001-450,000,000 27 $450,000,001-500,000,000 26 Over $500,000,000 25
(ii)The percentage limitations contained in paragraph 8(i) may be exceeded provided that all stock acquired by insiders and associates of insiders or awarded under all MRPs and Option Plans in excess of those limitations is acquired in the secondary market. If acquired for such awards on the secondary market, such acquisitions must begin no earlier than one year after the close of the proposed issuance or any subsequent issuance that is made in substantial conformity with the purchase priorities set forth in part 563b.
(iii)In calculating the number of shares held by insiders and their associates under this provision, shares awarded but not delivered under an ESOP, MRP, or Option Plan that are attributable to such persons shall not be counted as being acquired by such persons.
(9)Provide that the amount of common stock that may be encompassed under all Option Plans and MRPs must not exceed, in the aggregate, 25 percent of the outstanding common stock held by persons other than the savings association's mutual holding company parent at the close of the proposed issuance. 8. Add a new paragraph
(c)to § 575.8, to read as follows.
(c)*Applicability of provisions of § 563b.500(a) to minority stock issuances.* Notwithstanding § 575.7(d) of this part, §§ 563b.500(a)(2) and
(3)do not apply to minority stock issuances, because the permissible sizes of ESOPs, MRPs, and Option Plans in minority stock issuances are subject to each of the requirements set forth at paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(9) of this section. Sections 563b.500(a)(4) though (a)(14) apply for one year after the savings association engages in a minority stock issuance that is conducted in accordance with the purchase priorities set forth in part 563b. In addition to the shareholder vote requirement for Option Plans and MRPs set forth at § 563b.500(a)(6), any Option Plans and MRPs put to a shareholder vote during the year after a minority stock issuance that is conducted in accordance with the purchase priorities set forth in part 563b must be approved by a majority of the votes cast by stockholders other than the mutual holding company. Dated: July 11, 2006. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John M. Reich, Director. [FR Doc. E6-11278 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6720-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 33 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25375; Notice No. 06-09] RIN 2120-AI73 Airworthiness Standards; Engine Bird Ingestion AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend the aircraft turbine engine type certification standards to reflect recent analysis of the threat flocking birds present to turbine engine aircraft. These proposed changes would also harmonize FAA, Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), and European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)bird ingestion standards for aircraft turbine engines type certificated by the United States and the JAA/EASA countries, and simplify airworthiness approvals for import and export. These proposed changes are necessary to establish uniform international standards that provide an adequate level of safety for aircraft turbine engines with respect to the current large flocking bird threat. DATES: Send your comments on or before September 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2006-25375] using any of the following methods: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Bouthillier, Rulemaking and Policy Branch, Engine and Propeller Directorate, ANE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone
(781)238-7196; facsimile
(781)238-7199; e-mail *marc.bouthillier@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the Internet at the Web address in the ADDRESSES section. *Privacy Act:* Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive. If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you. Proprietary or Confidential Business Information Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1)Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System
(DMS)Web page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search* );
(2)Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at *http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/* ; or
(3)Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.* You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this rulemaking. Executive Summary The FAA adopted new regulations under 14 CFR 33.76 on September 5, 2000, to better address the overall bird ingestion threat. These requirements were adopted, in part, as a response to a National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)recommendation (Number A-76-64), which recommended an increase in the level of bird ingestion capability for aircraft engines. These requirements were published as Amendment 20 to part 33, § 33.76, in December 2000. In that final rule, the FAA also agreed to study the bird threat further and to consider additional rulemaking to address larger flocking birds, since certification requirements did not address the threat that either birds bigger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) or their growing population, presented to engine operational safety. In 2001, the FAA initiated a contract to collect and analyze data, and reported its findings in DOT/FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/60, “Study of Bird Ingestions into Aircraft Turbine Engines (1968-1999)”. The report summarized the historical bird threat and resulting impact to flight safety, based on bird ingestion data collected and analyzed for the 30-year period ending in 1999. The Transport Airplane and Engine Issues Group (TAEIG), and its Engine Harmonization Working Group
(EHWG)utilized the report discussed above and reported back to the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC)on January 6, 2003 with its results and its proposed additional part 33 requirements. The ARAC adopted the working group's recommendations. This NPRM reflects the ARAC recommendations. The ARAC's proposed revision to § 33.76 would add a new requirement that addresses large flocking birds weighing more than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) and up to 3.65 kg (8 lbs). The proposal contains extensive common language between part 33 and JAR-E (now CS-E). However, these strengthened requirements for the certification of the engines may not be adequate to meet the safety objective in the future, if the quantity of these birds or their movement near airports significantly increases when compared to the present situation. This proposed rule may be considered safety significant relative to the requirements of § 21.101, Designation of Applicable Regulations for Changes to Type Certificates. Background The EHWG reviewed the current § 33.76 bird ingestion requirements, related advisory material, and the current bird threat. It considered the industry data concerning bird threat trend analysis, including all reasonably predictable changes to the current threat, and if the current rule adequately meets its stated safety objective. The working group also considered potential changes in the threat from increased populations of particular bird species, actions intended to control populations around airports, and flight-crew training for flocking-bird recognition and avoidance. Finally, the working group recommended changes to § 33.76 and the corresponding JAR-E regulation to address inadequacies in the current rule and related advisory material. The recommendations are based on the following: Industry Study The industry study covers a thirty year period of worldwide non-military service experience of small, medium and large turbofan and turbojet engines, including two, three and four engine aircraft, over 325 million aircraft departures, and about 340 events involving ingestions of large flocking birds (over 1.15 kg [2.5 lbs mass]). The study did not include data from aircraft manufactured or flown in the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, since that data was unavailable. The study concluded that the proposed rule should address the dual-engine power loss hazard, since the data indicated that more-than-two-engine loss of power events are extremely improbable. The study also produced a characterization of the threat and consequences of bird ingestion. As a result of that analysis, the ARAC identified flocking bird encounter threats more severe than specifically addressed under current § 33.76. Throughout the study, birds were identified by species, and an average mass for that species was assigned. All references to bird mass reflect the average mass for the species classification. The following are summaries for different inlet throat areas. 1. *Observations for Turbine Engines With Inlet Throat Areas Larger Than 3.9 m* 2 *:* • No multi-engine power loss events with catastrophic aircraft consequences involving birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred. However, these events are currently predicted to occur at the rate of 1E-9 per aircraft flight hour, based on the power loss probabilities for smaller size engines. This is a conservative approach, since the power loss probability for this size engine is expected to be better than the smaller engines because of their inherently more robust design regarding foreign object damage, and because there was not enough service history data for this size engine to calculate the probability without considering the smaller size engine data. • No multi-engine ingestion events for bird classifications larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred. 2. *Observations for Turbine Engines With Inlet Throat Areas Between 3.5 and 3.9 m* 2 *:* • No multi-engine power loss events with catastrophic aircraft consequences involving birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred. However, these events are currently predicted to occur at the rate of about 1.1E-9 per aircraft flight hour. • Multi-engine ingestions of flocking birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred at a rate of 7.4E-8 per aircraft flight hour. • No multi-engine ingestion events for bird classifications larger than 3.65 kg (8 lbs) have occurred. 3. *Observations for Turbine Engines With Inlet Throat Areas Between 2.5 and 3.5 m* 2 *:* • No multi-engine power loss events with catastrophic aircraft consequences have occurred with birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs). However, these events are currently predicted to occur at the rate of 1.5E-9 per aircraft flight hour. • Multi-engine ingestions of flocking birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred at a rate of 2.2E-8 per aircraft flight hour. • No multi-engine ingestion events for bird classifications larger than 1.5 kg (3.3 lbs) have occurred. 4. *Observations for Turbine Engines With Inlet Throat Areas Between 1.35 and 2.5 m* 2 *:* • No multi-engine power loss events with catastrophic aircraft consequences have occurred with birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs). However these events are currently predicted to occur at the rate of 2.8E-10 per aircraft flight hour. • No multi-engine ingestions of flocking birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred (one ground event did occur after landing). 5. *Observations for Turbine Engines With Inlet Throat Areas Between 0.40 and 1.35 m* 2 *:* • One multi-engine power loss event involving a bird mass less than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) with catastrophic aircraft consequences has occurred for transport category airplanes, and four for business jet applications. • Multi-engine ingestions of flocking birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred at a rate of 1.8E-8 per aircraft flight hour for large transport category aircraft. Data for business jets were incomplete and therefore no rate was calculated. • No multi-engine ingestion events for bird classifications larger than 3.65 kg (8 lbs) have occurred. 6. *Observations for Turbine Engines With Inlet Throat Areas Less Than 0.40 m* 2 *:* • No multi-engine power loss events with catastrophic aircraft consequences with birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred in service. No multi-engine power loss events involving a bird mass less than 1.15 kg with catastrophic aircraft consequences have occurred involving transport category aircraft. Of the data provided on business jets, three multi-engine power loss events involving a bird mass less than 1.15 kg with catastrophic aircraft consequences have occurred. • Transport category aircraft multi-engine ingestions of flocking birds (of all mass sizes) have been reported to occur at a rate of 3.2E-8 per engine hour. • No multi-engine ingestion events for bird classifications larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs mass) have been reported. The study concluded that currently certified engine designs might suffer a hazardous condition from large flocking bird ingestion at a rate slightly higher than desired. This conclusion led the ARAC to recommend new certification test requirements to achieve the safety objective discussed below, on a fleet wide basis. Proposed Rule Safety Objective Flocking birds may be ingested by more than one engine on the aircraft during one encounter. The objective of this proposed rule is to define certification criteria such that the predicted rate of catastrophic aircraft events due to multi-engine power loss resulting from multi-engine ingestion of flocking birds weighing between 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) and 3.65 kg (8 lbs) does not exceed 1E-9 events per aircraft flight hour. A catastrophic aircraft event might occur when damage to the engines results in an unsafe condition as specified in § 33.75; or where insufficient total aircraft power, thrust or engine operability is retained to provide adequate engine run-on capability for continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft. The study concluded that it is not possible to demonstrate by a single test that any given engine design will experience no more than one multi-engine failure with catastrophic consequences to the aircraft due to ingestion of large flocking birds in 1E9 hours of fleet experience. However, the study did conclude that a design requirement that will provide the basis for predicting that level of reliability on a fleet wide basis is possible, based on the following assumptions: • Current bird control standards for airport certification will be maintained. • Airport operators, air traffic controllers, and pilots will maintain their current awareness of, and mitigation proficiencies for, the bird ingestion threat. • Any increase in the large flocking bird multi-engine ingestion rate over the next ten years will not exceed values estimated from the current bird growth rate observed in the data study. The safety objective for this proposed rule is applied at the world fleet level. The world fleet of turbine powered airplanes is comprised of two, three, and four engine airplanes. The large engine historical fleet experience of multi-engine ingestions is dominated by three and four engine airplane data, however two engine airplanes are likely to dominate the future fleet. The working group considered this evolving situation within this rulemaking effort, with assumptions about future fleet makeup playing a role in the selection of possible new requirements. With respect to bird ingestion, differences between these aircraft types generally relate to either the multi-engine bird ingestion rate, or the probability of a hazardous consequence given an actual dual-engine power loss. For example, twin-engine airplanes will have a higher probability of a hazardous consequence given an actual dual-engine power loss; however their multi-engine bird ingestion rate (and resulting power loss) is much lower than that of the three- and four-engine airplanes. Conversely, three- and four-engine airplanes, while having substantially higher rates of multi-engine bird ingestion (and resulting power loss), are less likely to suffer a hazardous consequence should a dual-engine power loss actually occur. The EHWG review of world fleet service data collected as part of the industry study indicates that the higher rate of multi-engine bird ingestion occurrences for three- and four-engine airplanes dominates the rate for the entire fleet of large engines. This proposed rulemaking is therefore, based on the current world fleet distribution of two, three, and four engine airplanes in determining the potential new requirements necessary to meet the safety objective. Since the world fleet of large engines is becoming increasingly populated with two engine airplanes, the proposed performance requirements will become more conservative and provide an even higher level of safety with respect to the multi-engine bird ingestion threat to airplanes in service for these size engines. For small and medium size engines, the world fleet is overwhelmingly made up of twin-engine airplanes. This situation is not likely to change over time. Therefore the multi-engine ingestion rate data for large size engines reflects the current fleet makeup. Proposed Rule Parameter Selection The EHWG concluded that to establish the test conditions that satisfy the safety objective, a probability analysis was needed. The probability of a dual-engine power loss given a dual-engine ingestion involves considerations of dependent and independent conditions. During a flock encounter, both engines are traveling at the same forward speed (that of the aircraft) and will be at the same power setting, creating a dependent condition. The independent conditions involve the details of the actual impact of the bird with the engine. Because of the combination of dependent and independent conditions involved in the analysis, simple numeric relationships for determining dual-engine power loss probabilities would not be appropriate. Therefore the working group selected a Monte Carlo simulation as the best tool to use for this analysis. The selection of controlling parameters for the analysis and a description of the analysis techniques are discussed below. The EHWG recommendation identified the need to design a test that is representative of in-service combinations of critical ingestion parameters. Therefore, engine ingestion parameters for actual events resulting in sustained power loss were evaluated by the EHWG. The working group found that the most critical parameters that affect power loss are bird mass, bird speed, impact location, and engine power setting. They concluded that since testing for all possible combinations of parameters is impractical, defining a single certification test that will support meeting the safety objective was necessary. The working group defined this test requirement by using a Monte Carlo statistical analysis to show that the engine test covers a sufficient percentage of possible critical parameter combinations so as to support meeting the safety objective for birds in the 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) to 3.65 kg (8 lbs) mass range. The EHWG used the study to determine the probability of a catastrophic consequence to an aircraft given a dual-engine power loss event, and to aid in defining a test that would likely achieve the aircraft level fleet safety objective. They took the single engine ingestion rate and multi-engine ingestion rates for birds with mass larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) from the data, along with the fleet average flight length of 3.2 hours for large engine installations, and 1.7 hours for small and medium engine installations. The EHWG then used historical accident and incident service data to determine an aircraft hazard ratio. A hazard ratio is the number of aircraft accidents (related to multi-engine power loss) divided by the number of dual-engine power loss events. A dual-engine power loss is an event where at least two engines on an aircraft have a combined thrust loss greater than the maximum thrust of one engine. The multi-engine ingestion rate, average flight length and hazard ratio were analyzed to establish a combination of test parameters and conditions that would be consistent with the safety objective. Hazard Ratio To establish a hazard ratio, the FAA provided the EHWG with a list describing known multi-engine power loss events for review. The FAA data shows a hazard ratio for twin-engine aircraft to be 0.33, and all aircraft events to be 0.07. The Aerospace Industries Association
(AIA)Propulsion Committee Report PC342 (submitted in support of Continued Airworthiness Assessment Methodology
(CAAM)activity) shows a hazard ratio of 0.07 for all aircraft. The Boeing supplied data for large high bypass ratio engines shows a hazard ratio of 0.05 for all aircraft. Based on the above data, the EHWG selected a hazard ratio of 0.18 for all engines. The working group found that this hazard ratio was appropriate for the specific data set being utilized. The working group achieved similar results when statistical confidence bands of 75 and 90 percent for each data category were tabulated for comparison. This provided confidence that the value selected is appropriate for the fleet mix under consideration. For consistency with this single hazard ratio approach, the group applied a standard mix of 75-percent two engine and 25-percent four engine applications (based on aircraft flights) to all engine size classes. Monte Carlo Analysis A mathematical calculation working backward from the safety objective established a fleetwide multi-engine power loss rate that would satisfy the overall safety objective of the proposed rule. Then a number of Monte Carlo simulations were performed to identify a set of bird ingestion test conditions that would, if demonstrated during type certification, produce a fleetwide dual-engine power loss rate that supports the desired safety objective of the proposal. The Monte Carlo simulations involved entering bird strike impact energy into the first stage rotor in accordance with variations of the ingestion parameters determined by service data probability curves. These parameters are noted below. Initial simulations defined a parameter boundary created by the current and proposed certification requirements (independent of fan blade or overall engine design) that would meet the safety objective. The Monte Carlo simulation used random inputs of the following parameters: • Takeoff or approach phase ingestion probabilities established from the data study (The data study showed an even 50-percent split between takeoff and approach encounters). • Engine takeoff power first stage rotor speed based on actual service data. • Impact location on the engine fan face based on area. • Aircraft forward speed based on actual service data. • The bird size based on a probability distribution established from the data study for birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) but less than or equal to 3.65 kg (8 lbs). The Monte Carlo simulations also accounted for installation effects at the fan blade tip (tip shielding). An installed engine is generally shielded by the nacelle structure, particularly the inlet cowl, which reduces the exposure of the fan blade tip from direct impact by large birds. The reduction in the exposed diameter is close to 10 percent, but varies slightly with the engine diameter. The engine structure considered in the analysis consists of any inlet structure that can be impacted by an ingested bird, including but not limited to inlet guide vanes, spinners, and fairings. Static engine inlet structure that would be certified as part of the engine, and which could be impacted by a bird prior to the bird striking the first rotating stage of an engine compressor was also evaluated in the analysis. Of particular interest was the fan fairing (for example, spinner or bullet nose), that directs inlet air around the fan hub into the core or fan bypass airflows. With current technology, this fairing is approximately one third of the diameter of the fan, which is approximately 11-percent of the fan area. The data shows that this fairing is impacted in service by birds in proportion to its area. The data also shows that fairings certified with engines to the requirements of § 33.77 (Amendment 33-6) have not caused an engine power loss from impacts due to birds of any size, including large flocking birds. The current requirement of § 33.76 requires that the fairing demonstrate capability for 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) birds at the critical location at 250 knots impact speed. The requirements for the fairing, with conservative allowance for the size of the critical area of the fairing, were entered into the Monte Carlo analysis. The Monte Carlo analysis included impacts to the fairing as well as the fan blades for the overall evaluation. The results of the Monte Carlo analysis showed the safety target could be met for inlet components meeting the current requirements of § 33.76. As a result, the current requirements of § 33.76 appear to provide acceptable standards, and no additional rulemaking is contemplated for these classes of components. However, the working group decided to revise the Advisory Circular to clarify what the current requirements and acceptable methods of compliance are for inlet components. Test Conditions and Results The following test conditions are proposed based on the above analysis: 1. *Power, Thrust & Rotor Speeds:* The first stage of rotating blades of the engine is the feature of a typical turbine engine most susceptible to damage from large flocking birds which can result in loss of engine power. The working group determined that selecting a first stage rotor speed that most engines were likely to be at during takeoff would support meeting the safety objective. Analysis of manufacturer collected service data, which includes de-rated thrust operations for the world fleet, showed that this first stage rotor speed, on a fleet average basis, corresponds to 90 percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust on an International Standard Atmosphere
(ISA)standard day. Therefore, the thrust or power setting for the proposed test demonstration is based on first stage rotor speed itself, which will be equal to a rotor speed that corresponds to engine operation at 90 percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust on an ISA standard day. 2. *Bird Speed:* The speed of the bird during the proposed test represents the speed of the aircraft at the time of ingestion. Ingestions that occur at speeds lower than flight speeds generally result in rejected takeoffs, and are usually less hazardous to the aircraft. Flight speeds at altitudes where large flocking birds are most likely encountered generally range between 150 and 250 knots. Damage to an engine due to a bird ingestion is a result of a combination of parameters that include ingestion speed, first stage rotor speed, and location of impact on the rotor blade span. For most turbine engine designs, analysis showed that a bird speed less than 250 knots is generally more conservative. The data shows that the most representative aircraft speed for encounters with large flocking birds is approximately 200 knots. The working group therefore, used 200 knots as the impact speed for the test demonstration. 3. *Target Location:* The Monte Carlo simulations showed that a test with bird impact at 50 percent of fan blade height or greater, in conjunction with the other test parameters described above, supports meeting the required safety objective of the rule. This aspect of the overall analysis assumes that the first stage blades will be more impact tolerant inboard of the 50-percent height location than outboard, and that the core ingestion capability is adequately addressed under the medium bird requirements. The test demonstration will establish the capability level of the first stage rotor at a location representing a minimum of half of the exposed area of the engine. 4. *Run-on:* The proposed run-on demonstration shows that the engine is capable of providing the required power, thrust and operability after the ingestion event. The engine must be able to continue a take-off and initial climb, and perform one air turn-back, with a safe return for landing. The current procedures recommended by the aircraft manufacturers and regulators following an engine malfunction, are for flight crews to concentrate on flying the aircraft without throttle manipulation, regardless of the nature of an engine malfunction, until an altitude of at least 400 ft. is reached. Also, the aircraft would have to be flown so that flight crews could maintain the aircraft on glide slope. Therefore, the run-on time for the large flocking bird ingestion test has been tentatively set at a minimum of 20 minutes (the same as for the medium bird requirements of § 33.76). The working group also specified that during the test the following parameters be met: for the first minute after ingestion with no throttle manipulation, the engine must produce at least 50-percent maximum rated takeoff thrust; then the engine is to maintain no less than 50-percent maximum rated takeoff thrust for the next 13 minutes, but the throttle may be manipulated to provide opportunity for the aircraft to establish itself in a return approach attitude; then a five minute period at approach thrust with a one minute thrust bump to demonstrate that a flight crew could establish approach thrust/power and manipulate the throttle sufficiently to maintain glide slope during approach and landing. The working group also specified a final minute where the engine has to demonstrate that it can be brought safely to ground idle and shutdown. Also, given the potential for significant engine damage and resulting operating characteristics effects due to ingestion of birds of this mass, the group did not consider it reasonable to require engine re-acceleration after landing for thrust reverser use. 5. *Bird Mass and Weight:* For engines with inlet throat area larger than 3.9 m 2 (6045 sq in), a bird size of 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs) is representative of the average Snow Goose, one of the species identified as a key large flocking bird threat to transport category aircraft. The Monte Carlo simulation analysis shows that specifying a 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs) bird for the certification requirement, tested at the conditions specified in the proposed rule, provides adequate mitigation of the risk for bird masses larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs), and up to 3.65 kg (8 lbs), such that the proposed rule's safety objective is met. This determination covers both the current and projected multi-engine ingestion rates. Similarly, for engines with an inlet throat area between 3.5-3.9 m 2 (5425-6045 sq in), the group found that a large flocking bird demonstration with a 2.1 kg (4.63 lbs) bird would be required to meet the safety objective. For engines with an inlet throat area between 2.5-3.5 m 2 (3875-5425 sq in), the group found that a large flocking bird demonstration with a 1.85 kg (4.08 lbs) bird would likely be required to meet the safety objective and for engines with an inlet throat area of 2.5 m 2 (3875 sq in) or less, the data review and analysis showed the current requirements of § 33.76 (for these size engines) already supports meeting the safety objective proposed for this rulemaking. Therefore, the current requirements of § 33.76 for engines with inlet throat areas of 2.5 m 2 (3875 sq in) or less would remain unchanged. TAEIG Recommendation The working group concluded that the proposed rule supports achieving the target level of safety against the currently identified and 10-year projected large flocking bird threat. The EHWG has also submitted recommendations relating to the control of Snow and Canada geese populations and their movements near airports. The TAEIG delivered these recommendations to FAA through an ARAC letter dated January 3, 2002. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety standards for aircraft engines. This proposed rule is within the scope of that authority because it updates the existing regulations for bird ingestion. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there are no current new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, FAA policy is to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO)Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations. Economic Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, to be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this NPRM. The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposal does not warrant a full regulatory evaluation, this order permits a statement to that effect. The basis for the minimal impact must be included in the preamble, if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for that determination follows: This NPRM would revise FAR 33.76 to harmonize with the current EASA CS-E 800. A brief discussion of the concept of harmonization is presented below. Presently, U.S. turbine engine manufacturers must satisfy the certification requirements of both the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)to market turbine engines in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two different sets of certification requirements can increase the costs of developing turbine engines often with no associated safety benefits. In the interests of fostering international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft and/or engine development, and making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, EASA, and equipment manufacturers have been working to create, to the maximum extent possible, a uniform set of certification requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. This endeavor is referred to as “harmonization.” Prior to 1970, each country had its own aviation standards. Therefore, if you wished to certify an engine in another country it was necessary to go through that country's certification process in addition to your own country's certification process. This resulted in a great deal of time and expense if it was desired to certify an engine in several countries. It was also felt that it was not necessary because many of the standards were similar. In 1970, the Cyprus Arrangements created the Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)in Europe. The JAA's purpose was to develop aviation standards that would be adopted by the individual European National Aviation Authorities (NAA's). The standards that were developed were known as the Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR's). However, the JAA had no legal status and it was up to each NAA as to whether they would adopt the JAR's in whole or in part. Each NAA was also responsible for aviation regulation matters in its particular country. The successor organization to the JAA is the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This organization came into existence on July 15, 2002 by Regulation
(EC)1592/2002 of the European Parliament and Council. The EASA became operational for certification of aircraft, engines, parts and appliances on September 28, 2003 by Commission Regulation
(EC)1702/2003. When the EASA became operational it adopted all appropriate regulations including those that were in the process of being revised. Because the harmonization process between the proposed part 33.76 and the proposed CS-E 800 was almost completed when the EASA became operational, the requirements of the proposed part 33.76 and CS-E 800 are identical. CS-E 800 is now an official rule of a foreign regulatory agency while the proposed part 33.76 is still in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM)stage. Because CS-E 800 is an official regulation of a foreign government agency, according to the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, it could be used as the basis for an American rule. The effect of this proposed rulemaking would be to reduce duplication of certification effort, through harmonization, thereby narrowing the differences between the U.S. and European regulations, because this proposal would create, to the maximum extent possible, a single set of certification requirements accepted in the United States and Europe. It should be noted that the American aircraft engine manufacturers already sell their products in Europe. To do this, the American aircraft engine manufacturers already voluntarily meet the European standards. Therefore, this proposed rule would have no impact on the costs of the American aircraft engine manufacturers. The expected outcome of this NPRM is to have a minimal cost impact with positive net benefits for the reasons described above. Therefore, a detailed regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification regarding the FAA determination of minimal impact. The FAA has, therefore, determined that this rulemaking action is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. In addition, the FAA has determined that this rulemaking action:
(1)Would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2)is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act; and
(3)would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA)establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to consider flexible regulatory proposals, to explain the rationale for their actions, and to solicit comments. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it would, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. This proposed rule would affect the following U.S. aircraft engine manufacturers: 1. GE Infrastructure Aircraft Engines; a Business Unit of the General Electric Co. 2. The Pratt & Whitney Company; a Division of United Technologies Corp. The General Electric Company employs 300,000 people and United Technologies employs 209,000 people. The Small Business Administration
(SBA)uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as updated by the Office of Management and the Budget
(OMB)in 2002 or NAICS 2002 to classify industries and develop size standards. The classification for General Electric and United Technologies is NAICS 2002 Sectors 31-33 Manufacturing; Subsector 336 Transportation Equipment; and Aircraft Engine and Parts Manufacturers or Number 336412. The size standard for a small business aircraft engine manufacturer (NAICS 2002 336412) is 1,000 employees. All United States engine manufacturers who would be affected by FAR part 33.76 exceed the SBA small-entity criteria of 1,000 employees. Consequently, the FAA certifies that this rulemaking action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination. Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. Thus this proposed rule is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act, as it would use European Aviation Safety Agency standards, as the basis for U.S. standards. Unfunded Mandates Assessment The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that this proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, this proposed rule would not have federalism implications. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this proposed rule qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Safety, Safety The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704. 2. Amend § 33.76 by revising paragraphs
(a)introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5), the heading of paragraph
(b)introductory text, and the heading of paragraph
(c)introductory text, and adding paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 33.76 Bird ingestion.
(a)*General.* Compliance with paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d)of this section shall be in accordance with the following:
(1)Except as specified in paragraph
(d)of this section, all ingestion tests must be conducted with the engine stabilized at no less than 100-percent takeoff power or thrust, for test day ambient conditions prior to the ingestion. In addition, the demonstration of compliance must account for engine operation at sea level takeoff conditions on the hottest day that a minimum engine can achieve maximum rated takeoff thrust or power.
(3)The impact to the front of the engine from the large single bird, the single largest medium bird which can enter the inlet, and the large flocking bird must be evaluated. Applicants must show that the associated components when struck under the conditions prescribed in paragraphs (b),
(c)or
(d)of this section, as applicable, will not affect the engine to the extent that the engine cannot comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(6) and (d)(4) of this section.
(5)Objects that are accepted by the Administrator may be substituted for birds when conducting the bird ingestion tests required by paragraphs (b),
(c)and
(d)of this section.
(b)*Large single bird.* * * *
(c)*Small and medium flocking bird.* * * *
(d)*Large flocking bird.* An engine test will be performed as follows:
(1)Large flocking bird engine tests will be performed using the bird mass and weights in Table 4, and ingested at a bird speed of 200 knots.
(2)Prior to the ingestion, the engine must be stabilized at no less than the mechanical rotor speed of the first exposed stage or stages that, on a standard day, would produce 90 percent of the sea level static maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
(3)The bird must be targeted on the first exposed rotating stage or stages at a blade airfoil height of not less than 50 percent measured at the leading edge.
(4)Ingestion of a large flocking bird under the conditions prescribed in this paragraph must not cause any of the following:
(i)A sustained reduction of power or thrust to less than 50 percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust during the run-on segment specified under paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section.
(ii)Engine shutdown during the required run-on demonstration specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
(iii)The conditions specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(5)The following test schedule must be used:
(i)Ingestion followed by 1 minute without power lever movement.
(ii)Followed by 13 minutes at not less than 50 percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
(iii)Followed by 2 minutes between 30 and 35 percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
(iv)Followed by 1 minute with power or thrust increased from that set in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, by between 5 and 10 percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
(v)Followed by 2 minutes with power or thrust reduced from that set in paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, by between 5 and 10 percent of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust.
(vi)Followed by a minimum of 1 minute at ground idle then engine shutdown. The durations specified are times at the defined conditions. Power lever movement between each condition will be 10 seconds or less, except that power lever movements allowed within paragraph (d)(5)(ii) are not limited, and for setting power under paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section will be 30 seconds or less.
(6)Compliance with the large flocking bird ingestion requirements of this paragraph may also be demonstrated by:
(i)Incorporating the requirements of paragraph (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section, into the large single bird test demonstration specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or,
(ii)Use of an engine subassembly test at the ingestion conditions specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section if:
(A)All components critical to complying with the requirements of paragraph
(d)of this section are included in the subassembly test; and
(B)The components of paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(A) of this section are installed in a representative engine for a run-on demonstration in accordance with paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section; except that section (d)(5)(i) is deleted and section (d)(5)(ii) must be 14 minutes in duration after the engine is started and stabilized; and
(C)The dynamic effects that would have been experienced during a full engine ingestion test can be shown to be negligible with respect to meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section.
(7)Applicants must show that an unsafe condition will not result if any engine operating limit is exceeded during the run-on period. Table 4 to § 33.76.—Large Flocking Bird Mass and Weight Engine inlet throat area m 2 (sq in) Bird quantity Bird mass and weight kg
(lbs)A <2.50 (3875 sq in) None 2.50 (3875 sq in) ≤A <3.50 (5425 sq in) 1 1.85 kg (4.08 lbs). 3.50 (5425 sq in) ≤A <3.90 (6045 sq in) 1 2.10 kg (4.63 lbs). 3.90 (6045 sq in) ≤A 1 2.50 kg (5.51 lbs). Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2006. John J. Hickey, Director, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11373 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0130; FRL-8200-1] RIN 2060-AL90 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Minor Amendments to the Regulations Implementing the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC Production, Import and Export AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the current regulations governing the production and trade of certain ozone-depleting substances to address issues concerning the export of previously imported material, heels, the exemption allowance petition process for HCFC-141b for military and space vehicle applications, and the definition for “importer.” We are proposing these minor adjustments to our regulations in response to requests from the regulated community, to ensure equitable treatment of stakeholders, and to reduce burden where the integrity of the requirements can still be sufficiently maintained. These proposed amendments appear in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** as a direct final rule. DATES: Comments must be submitted by August 21, 2006, or by September 5, 2006 if a hearing is requested by July 31, 2006. If requested, a hearing will be held on August 4, 2006 and the comment period will be extended until September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0130, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.* • Fax: 202-566-1741. • Mail: Docket #, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0130, Air and Radiation Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0130. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Axinn Newberg, EPA, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
(202)343-9729, *newberg.cindy@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(1)Under the *Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer* (Protocol), as amended, the U.S. and other industrialized countries that are Parties to the Protocol have agreed to limit production and consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and to phase out consumption in a step-wise fashion over time, culminating in a complete phaseout in 2030. Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAAA)authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations to manage the consumption and production of HCFCs until the total phaseout in 2030. EPA promulgated final regulations establishing an allowance tracking system for HCFCs on January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2820). These regulations were amended on June 17, 2004 (69 FR 34024) to ensure U.S. compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Today's proposed action would amend aspects of the regulations that relate to exports of previously imported material, the import of HCFC heels, the HCFC- 141b exemption allowance petition process, and the definition of “importer.” We are proposing these minor adjustments to our regulations in response to requests from the regulated community, to ensure equitable treatment of stakeholders, and to reduce burden where the integrity of the requirements can still be sufficiently maintained. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** , we are issuing these amendments as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule, or particular provisions of the rule, and the rule or the particular provisions will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this **Federal Register** .
(2)Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. Table of Contents I. Regulated Entities II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health & Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Regulated Entities These minor amendments to the HCFC allowance allocation system would affect the following categories: Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of regulated entities Chlorofluorocarbon gas manufacturing 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturers; Dichlorofluoroethane manufacturers Chlorodifluoroethane manufacturers. Chlorofluorocarbon gas importers 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane importers; Dichlorofluoroethane importers; Chlorodifluoroethane importers. Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane exporters; Dichlorofluoroethane exporters; Chlorodifluoroethane exporters. Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing 326140 3086 Plastics foam Products (Polystyrene Foam Products). Urethane and Other Foam Product (Except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 326150 3086 Insulation and cushioning, foam plastics (except polystyrene) manufacturing. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility, company, business organization, or other entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine these regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant” regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of the Executive Order and is therefore not subject to OMB review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Instead, this NPRM proposes to decrease the frequency of one specific report and limit the range of types of containers subject to a specific regulatory requirement. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0498 (EPA ICR No. 2014.02). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request
(ICR)may be obtained from the Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202)566-1672. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
(1)A small business as defined by the NAICS codes below
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Category NAICS code SIC code NAICS small business size standard (in number of employees or millions of dollars) 1. Chemical and Allied Products, NEC 424690 5169 100 2. Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters 325120 2869 100 After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. None of the entities affected by this rule are considered small as defined by the size standards listed above. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal government and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a written statement is required under section 202, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law. Section 203 of the UMRA requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule. Section 204 of the UMRA requires the Agency to develop a process to allow elected state, local, and tribal government officials to provide input in the development of any proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate. EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in any one year. The provisions in this proposed rule fulfill the obligations of the United States under the international treaty, *The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,* as well as those requirements set forth by Congress in the Clean Air Act. Viewed as a whole, all of these proposed amendments do not create a Federal mandate resulting in costs of $100 million or more in any one year for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this proposal contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments; therefore, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments under section 203. Finally, because this proposal does not contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state, local, and tribal officials under section 204. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. Today's proposal is expected to primarily affect producers, importers and exporters of HCFCs. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposal does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. It does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. While this proposal is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, we nonetheless have reason to believe that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone results in greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet
(UV)radiation to the earth's surface. The following studies describe the effects on children of excessive exposure to UV radiation:
(1)Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. “At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial role for the development of malignant melanoma,” Eur J Cancer 1994: 30A: 1647-54;
(2)Elwood JM Japson J. “Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies,” Int J Cancer 1997; 73:198-203;
(3)Armstrong BK, “Melanoma: childhood or lifelong sun exposure,” In: Grobb JJ, Stern RS Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, eds. “Epidemiology, causes and prevention of skin diseases,” 1st ed. London, England: Blackwell Science, 1997: 63-6;
(4)Whieman D., Green A. “Melanoma and Sunburn,” Cancer Causes Control, 1994: 5:564-72;
(5)Heenan, PJ. “Does intermittent sun exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case control study in Western Australia,” Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 489-94;
(6)Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB, Bajdik, CD, *et al.* “Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma.” Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: 157-63;
(7)Armstrong, DK. “How sun exposure causes skin cancer: an epidemiological perspective,” Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89-116. The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which EPA may not be aware, that assessed results of early life exposure to UV radiation. This proposal concerns minor changes to the existing regulatory regime for the class II controlled substances. Theses minor changes are not expected to increase the impacts on children's health from stratospheric ozone depletion. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 13, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-11531 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 139 Thursday, July 20, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Notice of Intent To Establish a New Information Collection AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chap. 35) and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's (CSREES) intention to request approval to establish a new information collection in support of the 4-H Youth Enrollment Report. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by September 18, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and requests for copies of this information collection by any of the following methods: E-mail: *jhitchcock@csrees.usda.gov;* Fax: 202-720-0857; Mail: USDA/CSREES, STOP 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2216; Hand Delivery/Courier: 800 9th Street, SW., Room 4217, Washington, DC 20024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hitchcock, E-Government Program Leader, Information Systems and Technology Management, 202-720-4343. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* 4-H Youth Enrollment Report. *OMB Number:* 0524-New. *Type of Request:* Intent to request and establish an information collection. *Abstract:* The mission of National 4-H Headquarters; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and well-being, and communities by creating opportunities for youth. 4-H is a complex national organization, led by National 4ndash;H Headquarters, CSREES, USDA, with hundreds of educational curricula, activities, and events for youth ages 5 to 17. Programs originate at 105 land-grant universities (LGUs), and local programs are conducted and managed by some 4,000 professional Extension staff in 3,050 counties, with nearly 7 million youth enrolled each year. Nearly 600,000 volunteer leaders work directly with the 4-H youth. The 1914 Smith-Lever Act created the Cooperative Extension System
(CES)of the LGUs and their Federal partner, the Extension Service, now the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA. 4-H was already well-established, and became the first operating part of the new extension work. The Smith-Lever Act stipulated that “It shall be the duty of said colleges, annually, on or about the first day of January, to make to the Governor of the State in which it is located a full and detailed report of its operations in extension work as defined in this Act * * * a copy of which report shall be sent to the Secretary of Agriculture.” As a result of this requirement, annually each county sends their state 4-H office an electronic aggregated summary of their 4-H enrollment. Information collected in the 4-H Youth Enrollment Report includes youth enrollment totals by delivery mode, youth enrollment totals by type of 4-H activity, youth enrollment totals by school grade, youth enrollment totals by gender, youth enrollment totals by place of residence, adult volunteer totals, youth volunteer totals, and youth enrollment totals by race and ethnicity. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Annual 4-H Enrollment Report is the principal means by which the 4-H movement can keep track of its progress, as well as emerging needs, potential problems and opportunities. The information from this collection is used to report, as requested by the Congress or the Administration, on rural versus urban outreach, enrollment by race, youth participation in leadership, community service, etc. It also is used to determine market share or percentage of the youth of each state by age and place of residence who are enrolled in the 4-H youth development program. The annual 4-H Youth Enrollment Report also allows oversight of all reasonable efforts by staff and volunteers to reach underserved and minority groups. Information also is available at *http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/library/4h_stats.htm.* *Estimate of Burden:* The hour burden estimates were calculated based on a survey of respondents conducted by CSREES for the purpose of obtaining clearance from the Office of Management and Budget in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 56. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 56 hours. *Comments:* Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(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. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of July, 2006. Gale Buchanan, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. [FR Doc. E6-11535 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration [06-TX-S] Designation for the State of Texas Area AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) announces that Intercontinental Grain Inspections, Inc.'s (Intercontinental), designation is amended to provide official inspection services under the United States Grain Standards Act in Montague, Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Red River, Young, Stephen, and Eastland Counties in Texas. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: USDA, GIPSA, Karen Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Compliance Division, STOP 3604, Room 1647-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3604. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Guagliardo at 202-720-7312, e-mail *Karen.W.Guagliardo@usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action. In the March 13, 2006, **Federal Register** (71 FR 12675), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in Clay, Montague, Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Red River, Young, Stephen, and Eastland Counties in Texas to submit an application for designation by April 12, 2006. There were two applicants for the Texas area: Enid Grain Inspection Company, Inc.
(Enid)and Intercontinental Grain Inspections Inc. (Intercontinental); both currently designated official agencies. Enid applied for designation to provide official services in Clay, Montague, Cooke, and Grayson Counties. Intercontinental applied for all of the counties announced in the March 13, 2006, **Federal Register.** GIPSA asked for comments on Enid and Intercontinental in the May 12, 2006, **Federal Register** (71 FR 27672). The geographic area specified in the March 13, 2006 **Federal Register** notice erroneously included Clay County. This county is currently assigned to another official agency and therefore is not open for designation in this action. Comments were due by June 12, 2006. GIPSA received one comment from an elevator manager in Lamar County, supporting Intercontinental for designation. GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that Intercontinental is better able to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the March 13, 2006, **Federal Register,** for which it applied. Intercontinental was previously designated for 18 months only, effective April 10, 2006, and terminating September 30, 2007. Intercontinental's designation will be amended to include the additional Texas counties. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling Intercontinental headquarters in Saginaw, Texas at 817-306-8900. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87k. David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11485 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-331-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4136 or
(202)482-3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), certain respondents requested a review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. In addition, on February 28, 2006, the petitioner 1 also requested an administrative review for numerous Ecuadorian exporters of subject merchandise in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). 1 The petitioner in this proceeding is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. In April 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review for 71 companies and we requested that each provide data on the quantity and value of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). These companies are listed in the Department's notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand* , 71 FR 17819 (April 7, 2006) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). Between May 24, 2006, and July 6, 2006, the requests for administrative review were withdrawn for 46 companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). These companies are: 1) Agricola e Industrial Ecuaplantation; 2) Alquimia Marina S.A.; 3) Babychic SA; 4) Brimon, S.A.; 5) Dunci S.A.; 6) Eculine; 7) Edpacif; 8) El Rosario
(ERSA)S.A.; 9) Empacadora del Pacifico S.A. (Edpacif S.A.); 10) Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda.; 11) Empacadora Grupo Gran Mar Empagran S.A.; 12) Empacadora Nacional C.A.; 13) Empacadora Bilbo S.A. (Bilbosa); 14) Empagran; 15) Estar C.A.; 16) Exporklore, S.A.; 17) Exportadora Bananera Noboa; 18) Exports del Oceano ; 19) Gondi S.A.; 20) Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila SA; 21) Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscilla; 22) Inepexa Inc.; 23) Karpicorp S.A.; 24) Marecuador Co Ltda.; 25) Marisco; 26) Mariscos de Chupadores Chupamar; 27) Mariscos del Ecuador c.l. Marecuador; 28) Mariscos del Ecuador Marecuador Co.; 29) Negocios Industriales Real NIRSA S.A.; 30) Novapesca SA; 31) Oceanmundo S.A.; 32) Oceanpro S.A.; 33) Operadora y Procesadora de Products Marinos OMARSA S.A.; 34) Oyerly SA; 35) P.C. Seafood SA; 36) Peslasa S.A.; 37) Phillips Seafood of Ecuador S.A.; 38) Procesadora del Rio Proriosa SA; 39) Procesadora Del Rio S.A. Proriosa; 40) Proriosa sa Procesadora del Rio SA; 41) Seafood Padre Aguirre; 42) Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A.; 43) Soitgar; 44) Tecnica & Comercio de la Pesca Teco; 45) Transmarina C. A.; and 46) Unilines Transport System. Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations requires that the Secretary rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. Therefore, because all requests for administrative reviews were timely withdrawn for the companies listed above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with regard to these companies. In addition, the petitioner requested a review of a single company twice under two different names: Jorge Luis and Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez. According to information on the record of this proceeding ( *i.e.* , the company's submission on May 9, 2006), these two company names refer to the same company, and the correct legal name for this company is Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez. We clarify that we will include this company in our administrative review only once. Therefore, because the company identified above will be included in this administrative review, and because keeping the incorrect company name with the list of companies included in this administrative review creates administrative difficulties, we are rescinding the review of Jorge Luis. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, the petitioner and certain respondents withdrew their requests for an administrative review for the following companies within the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1): Agricola e Industrial Ecuaplantation; Alquimia Marina S.A.; Babychic SA; Brimon, S.A.; Dunci S.A.; Eculine; Edpacif ; El Rosario
(ERSA)S.A.; Empacadora del Pacifico S.A. (Edpacif S.A.); Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda.; Empacadora Grupo Gran Mar Empagran S.A.; Empacadora Nacional C.A.; Empacadora Bilbo S.A. (Bilbosa); Empagran; Estar C.A.; Exporklore, S.A.; Exportadora Bananera Noboa; Exports del Oceano; Gondi S.A.; Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila SA; Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscilla; Inepexa Inc.; Karpicorp S.A.; Marecuador Co Ltda.; Marisco; Mariscos de Chupadores Chupamar; Mariscos del Ecuador c.l. Marecuador; Mariscos del Ecuador Marecuador Co.; Negocios Industriales Real NIRSA S.A.; Novapesca SA; Oceanmundo S.A.; Oceanpro S.A.; Operadora y Procesadora de Products Marinos OMARSA S.A.; Oyerly SA; P.C. Seafood SA; Peslasa S.A.; Phillips Seafood of Ecuador S.A.; Procesadora del Rio Proriosa SA; Procesadora Del Rio S.A. Proriosa; Proriosa sa Procesadora del Rio SA; Seafood Padre Aguirre; Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A.; Soitgar; Tecnica & Comercio de la Pesca Teco; Transmarina C. A.; and Unilines Transport System. Therefore, because no other interested party requested a review for these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to these companies. Additionally, as noted above, we are rescinding the review of Jorge Luis. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 14, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11546 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-838] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty; Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Katherine Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4007 or
(202)482-4929, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, Central de Industrializacao E Distribuicao De Alimentos Ltda.
(CIDA)and Produmar Cia Exportadora de Produtos Do Mar (Produmar) requested a review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). Also on February 28, 2006, the petitioner 1 requested an administrative review for numerous Brazilian exporters of subject merchandise in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). 1 The petitioner in this proceeding is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. In April 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review for 50 companies and requested that each provide data on the quantity and value of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). These companies are listed in the Department's notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand,* 71 FR 17819 (April 7, 2006) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). Between June 28, 2006, and July 6, 2006, the petitioner withdrew its requests for administrative review for the following 34 companies: 2
(1)Acarau Pesca Distr. De Pesc. Imp e Exp Ltda.;
(2)Aquacultura Fortaleza Aquafort SA;
(3)Aquamaris Aquaculture SA;
(4)Camanor—Produtos Marinhos Ltda.;
(5)Camaros do Brasil Ltda.;
(6)Camexim Captura Mec Exports Imports;
(7)Campi Camaroa do Piaui Ltda.;
(8)CIDA-Central de Industrializacao E Distribucao de Alimentos Ltda./Produmar-Cia Exportadora de Produtos do Mar;
(9)Cina Companhia Nordeste de Aquicultura E Alimentacao;
(10)Empaf—Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda.;
(11)Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda.;
(12)Ipesca;
(13)Juno Ind & Com de Pescados;
(14)Maricultura Netuno SA;
(15)Maricultura Rio Grandense;
(16)Maricultura Tropical;
(17)Marine Maricultura do Nordeste;
(18)MM Monteiro Pesca E Exportacao Ltda.;
(19)Mucuripe Pesca Ltda., Epp.;
(20)Norte Pesca;
(21)Ortico;
(22)Pesqueira Maguary Ltda.;
(23)Pesqueira Maguary Ltda.;
(24)Potiguar Alimentos do Mar Ltda.;
(25)Potipora Aqualcultura Ltda.;
(26)Produvale Produtos do Vale Ltda.;
(27)Qualimar Comercio Importacao E Exportacao Ltda.;
(28)Secom Aquicultura Comercio E Industria SA;
(29)Seafarm Criacao E Comercio de Produtos Aquaticos Ltda.;
(30)Sohagro Marina do Nordeste SA;
(31)SM Trading Industria E Comercio Ltda.;
(32)Tecmares Maricultura Ltda.;
(33)Terracor Tdg Exp. E Imp. Ltda.; and
(34)Torquato Pontes Pescados. On July 5, 2006, CIDA withdrew its request for review. Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations requires that the Secretary rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. 2 Duplicate company names in the petitioner's request for review and request to withdraw are only listed once. Partial Rescission of Review We are rescinding this review with respect to the 34 companies listed above in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), as the petitioner and CIDA have timely withdrawn their requests for an administrative review, and because no other interested party requested a review for these companies. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 14, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11549 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty; Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0656 or
(202)482-0498, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,* 71 FR 5239 (Feb. 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), certain respondents requested a review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand. In addition, on February 28, 2006, the petitioner 1 also requested an administrative review for numerous Thailand exporters of subject merchandise in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2)(1). 1 The petitioner in this proceeding is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. In April 2006, the Department initiated an administrative review for 145 companies and requested that each provide data on the quantity and value of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). These companies are listed in the Department's notice of initiation. *See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand,* 71 FR 17819 (Apr. 7, 2006) ( *Notice of Initiation* ). Between May 11, 2006, and July 6, 2006, the requests for administrative review were withdrawn for 112 companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). These companies are:
(1)ACU Transport (ACU);
(2)Ampai Frozen Food, Co., Ltd. (Ampai);
(3)Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd. (Andaman);
(4)Applied DB Ind (Applied DB);
(5)Asian Seafoods Cold Storage Public Company Limited (Asian Seafoods);
(6)Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Ltd. (Asian Seafoods (Suratthani));
(7)Assoc. Commercial Systems;
(8)AS Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd. (AS Intermarine);
(9)Bright Sea Co., Ltd. (Bright Sea);
(10)CP Mdse;
(11)C.Y. Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (C.Y. Frozen Food);
(12)Capital Food Trade Limited (Capital);
(13)Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd. (Chaivaree Marine);
(14)Chaiwarut Co., Ltd. (Chaiwarut);
(15)Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Chanthaburi);
(16)Chanthaburi Seafood Co., Ltd. (Chanthaburi Seafoods);
(17)Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Company Limited (Charoen Pokphand);
(18)Chonburi LC;
(19)Chue Eie Mong Eak (Chue Eie);
(20)Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Daedong);
(21)Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Daiei);
(22)Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Daiho);
(23)Dynamic Intertransport (Dynamic);
(24)Euro-Asian International Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Euro-Asian);
(25)Fait;
(26)Findus (Thailand) Limited (Findus);
(27)Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd. (Frozen Marine Products);
(28)Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd. (Good Fortune);
(29)Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. (64/2 Moo 5, Chana-Pattani Road, T. Bana, Amphur Chana, Songkhla, Thailand) 2 (Haitai Songkla);
(30)Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. (946 Room 902 9th Floor, Dusit Thani Building, Rama 4 Road, Silom, Bangrak, Bangkok 10500 Thailand) (Haitai Bangkok);
(31)Ham Intl (Ham);
(32)Heng Seafood Limited Partnership (Heng);
(33)Heritrade;
(34)High Way International Co., Ltd. (High Way);
(35)Instant Produce;
(36)Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd. (Inter-Pacific);
(37)KD Trdg (KD);
(38)Kiang Huat Sea Hull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd. (Kiang Huat);
(39)Kingfisher Holdings Limited (1261 Vicheanchodoc Rd., Tambol Mahachai, Amphur Muang, Samutsakorn 74000 Thailand) 3 (Kingfisher Samutsakorn);
(40)Kingfisher Holdings Limited (127/27 22nd Floor, Panjathani Tower Building, Nonsee (Rachadapisek) Road Chongnonsi, Yannawa, Bangkok 10120 Thailand) (Kingfisher Bangkok);
(41)Klang Co., Ltd. (200 Moo 1 Sukhumvit Road Khlong Poon Klaeng, Rayong 21170 Thailand) 4 (Klang Rayong);
(42)Klang Co., Ltd. (12th Floor, C.P. Tower, 313 Silom Road Bangrak, Bangkok 10500 Thailand) (Klang Bangkok);
(43)Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Kongphop);
(44)Leo Transports (Leo);
(45)Lucky Union Foods (Lucky Union);
(46)Magnate and Syndicate Co., Ltd. (Magnate and Syndicate);
(47)Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd. (Mahachai);
(48)Marine Gold Products Co., Ltd. (Marine Gold);
(49)May Ao Co., Ltd. (May Ao);
(50)May Ao Foods Co., Ltd. (May Ao Foods);
(51)Merkur Co., Ltd. (Merkur);
(52)MFK Interfood (MFK);
(53)Ming Chao Industrial (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Ming Chao);
(54)N&N Foods Co., Ltd. (N&N);
(55)Namprik Maesri (Namprik);
(56)Nongmon SMJ Products (Nongmon);
(57)Ongkorn Cold Storage Ltd. (Ongkorn);
(58)Penta Impex (Penta);
(59)Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd. (Phatthana);
(60)Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (Premier);
(61)Preserved Foods;
(62)Rayong Coldstorage
(1987)Co., Ltd. (Rayong);
(63)S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd. (S. Chaivaree);
(64)S. Khonkaen Food Ind Public (S. Khonkaen Public);
(65)S. Khonkaen Food Ind (S. Khonkaen);
(66)S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. (S.C.C.);
(67)SCT Co., Ltd. (SCT);
(68)Samui Foods (Samui);
(69)Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. (332 Soi Pongvetchchanusorn 2, Sukhumvit 64 Road, Bangchak, Prakanong, Bangkok 10260 Thailand) 5 (Sea Bonanza Bangkok);
(70)Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. (48-49 Sapmahachok, Tambom Nadee, Amphur Moung, Samutsakorn, Thailand) (Sea Bonanza Samutsakorn);
(71)Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Seafoods Enterprise);
(72)Seafresh Fisheries;
(73)Seafresh Industry Public Company Limited (Seafresh Industry);
(74)Search & Serve;
(75)Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd.(159 Surawong Road Suriyawong Bangrak, Bangkok 10500 Thailand) (Shianlin Bangkok);
(76)Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd. (148 Moo 5, Tambol Tasai Muang, Samut Sakorn Thailand) (Shianlin Samut Sakorn);
(77)Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd. (Siam Food);
(78)Siam Marine Products (Siam Marine);
(79)Siam Union Frozen Foods (Siam Union);
(80)Sky Fresh;
(81)Songkla Canning (Songkla);
(82)STC Foodpak Co., Limited (STC);
(83)Suntechthai Intertrdg (Suntechthai);
(84)Surapon Seafoods Public Co., Ltd. (Surapon);
(85)Surat Seafood Co., Ltd. (Surat);
(86)Suree Interfoods (Suree);
(87)Teppitak Seafood (Teppitak);
(88)Tey Seng Cold Storage Company Limited (Tey Seng);
(89)Thai Excel Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai Excel);
(90)Thai-ger Marine Co., Ltd. (Thai-ger);
(91)Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Thai International);
(92)Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd. (Thai Mahachai);
(93)Thai Prawn Culture Center Company Limited (Thai Prawn);
(94)Thai Royal Frozen Food (Thai Royal);
(95)Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd. (Thai Spring);
(96)Thai Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (Thai Union Frozen);
(97)Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. (Thai Union Seafood);
(98)Thai Union Mfg. (Thai Union Mfg.);
(99)Thai Yoo (Thai Yoo);
(100)Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd. (Thailand Fishery);
(101)Thanaya Intl (Thanaya);
(102)The Siam Union Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (The Siam Union);
(103)The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (The Union Frozen Products);
(104)Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd. (Trang);
(105)Transamut Food Co., Ltd. (Transamut);
(106)United Cold Storage Co., Ltd. (United Cold Storage);
(107)Wales & Co. Universe Ltd. (Wales & Co.);
(108)Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd. (Wann);
(109)Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd. (Xian-Ning);
(110)Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Y2K);
(111)Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Yeenin); and
(112)Yong Siam Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yong). Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations requires that the Secretary rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. Therefore, because all requests for administrative reviews were timely withdrawn for the companies listed above, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with regard to these companies. 2 We note that we initiated two separate reviews on Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. because the petitioner requested a review of this company and listed two separate addresses. On June 29, 2006, the petitioner withdrew its review requests for this company at both addresses. 3 We note that we initiated two separate reviews on Kingfisher Holdings Ltd. because the petitioner requested a review of this company and listed two separate addresses. On June 21, 2006, the petitioner withdrew its review requests for this company at both addresses. 4 We note that we initiated two separate reviews on Klang Co., Ltd. because the petitioner requested a review of this company and listed two separate addresses. On May 11, 2006, the petitioner withdrew its review requests for this company at both addresses. 5 We note that we initiated two separate reviews on Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. because the petitioner requested a review of this company and listed two separate addresses. On June 29, 2006, the petitioner withdrew its review requests for this company at both addresses. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, the petitioner and certain respondents withdrew their requests for an administrative review of ACU, Ampai, Andaman, Applied DB, Asian Seafoods, Asian Seafoods (Suratthani), Assoc. Commercial Systems, AS Intermarine, Bright Sea, CP Mdse, C.Y. Frozen Food, Capital, Chaivaree Marine, Chaiwarut, Chanthaburi, Chanthaburi Seafoods, Charoen Pokphand, Chonburi LC, Chue Eie, Daedong, Daiei, Daiho, Dynamic, Euro-Asian, Fait, Findus, Frozen Marine Products, Good Fortune, Haitai Songkla, Haitai Bangkok, Ham, Heng, Heritrade, High Way, Instant Produce, KD, Inter-Pacific, Kiang Huat, Kingfisher Samutsakorn, Kingfisher Bangkok, Klang Rayong, Klang Bangkok, Kongphop, Leo, Lucky Union, Magnate and Syndicate, Mahachai, Marine Gold, May Ao, May Ao Foods, Merkur, MFK, Ming Chao, N&N, Namprik, Nongmon, Ongkorn, Penta, Phatthana, Premier, Preserved Foods, Rayong, S. Chaivaree, S. Khonkaen Public, S. Khonkaen, S.C.C., SCT, Samui, Sea Bonanza Bangkok, Sea Bonanza Samutsakorn, Seafoods Enterprise, Seafresh Fisheries, Seafresh Industry, Search & Serve, Shianlin Bangkok, Shianlin Samut Sakorn, Siam Food, Siam Marine, Siam Union, Sky Fresh, Songkla, STC, Suntechthai, Surapon, Surat, Suree, Teppitak, Tey Seng, Thai Excel, Thai-ger, Thai International, Thai Mahachai, Thai Prawn, Thai Royal, Thai Spring, Thai Union Frozen, Thai Union Seafood, Thai Union Mfg., Thai Yoo, Thailand Fishery, Thanaya, The Siam Union, The Union Frozen Products, Trang, Transamut, United Cold Storage, Wales & Co., Wann, Xian-Ning, Y2K, Yeenin, and Yong within the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Therefore, because no other interested party requested a review for these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to these companies. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 14, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11561 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-905] Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-3208. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation of Investigation The Petition On June 23, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) received a petition on imports of certain polyester staple fiber
(PSF)from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) filed in proper form by Dak Americas LLC., Nan Ya Plastics Corporation America, and Wellman, Inc. (“Petitioners”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), Petitioners alleged that imports of certain polyester staple fiber from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring and threaten to injure an industry in the United States. The Department issued supplemental questions to Petitioners on June 28, 2006, and Petitioners filed their response on July 3, 2006. Scope of Investigation The merchandise subject to this proceeding is synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a silicon or other finish, or not coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. The following products are excluded from the scope:
(1)PSF of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.0025 and known to the industry as PSF for spinning and generally used in woven and knit applications to produce textile and apparel products;
(2)PSF of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches and that are generally used in the manufacture of carpeting; and
(3)low-melt PSF defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer, non-polyester sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner polyester core (classified at HTSUS 5503.20.0015). Certain PSF is classifiable under the HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the orders is dispositive. Comments on Scope of Investigation During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with Petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule* , 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this initiation notice. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 - Attention: Alex Villanueva, Room 4003. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. Determination of Industry Support for the Petition Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E),
(F)or (G), or on behalf of the domestic industry. In order to determine whether a petition has been filed by or on behalf of the industry, the Department, pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, determines whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for:
(i)at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii)more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall:
(i)poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or
(ii)determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method. Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. *See USEC, Inc. v. United States* , 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing *Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States* , 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), *aff'd* 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), *cert. denied* 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation,” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition). With regard to the domestic like product, the Petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that certain polyester staple fiber constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, *see* the *Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”)* , Industry Support at Attachment I ( *Initiation Checklist* ), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. Our review of the data provided in the petition, supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support representing at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition, requiring no further action by the Department pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Therefore, the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the domestic producers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Thus, the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment I (Industry Support). The Department finds that Petitioners filed the petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as defined in sections 771(9)(E) and
(F)of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation that they are requesting the Department initiate. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment I (Industry Support). Export Price Petitioners relied on two U.S. prices for certain polyester staple fiber manufactured in the PRC and offered for sale in the United States. The prices quoted were for a specific grade and quality of PSF falling within the scope of this petition, for delivery to the U.S. customer within the POI. Petitioners deducted from the prices the costs associated with exporting and delivering the product, including U.S. inland freight, ocean freight and insurance charges, U.S. duty, port and wharfage fees, foreign inland freight costs, and foreign brokerage and handling. Petitioners also calculated a margin based on the weighted average unit value data for the POI of imports from the PRC under HTSUS numbers 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. Petitioners deducted charges and expenses associated with exporting and delivering the product to the customer in the United States from the CIF price, which included ocean freight and insurance charges, foreign inland freight costs, and foreign brokerage and handling. Normal Value Petitioners stated that the PRC is a non-market economy (“NME”) and no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. In previous investigations, the Department has determined that the PRC is a NME. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 9037 (February 24, 2005), *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005), and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the normal value (“NV”) of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual exporters. Petitioners selected India as the surrogate country. Petitioners argued that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, India is an appropriate surrogate because it is a market-economy country that is at a comparable level of economic development to the PRC and is a significant producer and exporter of polyester staple fiber. Based on the information provided by Petitioners, we believe that its use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Petitioners provided three dumping margin calculations using the Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated normal values based on consumption rates for producing polyester staple fiber experienced by U.S. producers. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, Petitioners valued factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate country data. To value certain factors of production, Petitioners used official Indian government import statistics, excluding those values from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries and excluding imports into India from Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Thailand, because the Department has previously excluded prices from these countries because they maintain broadly-available, non-industry specific export subsidies. *See Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review* , 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the POI, Petitioners used information from the wholesale price indices (“WPI”) in India as published by the Reserve Bank of India
(RBI)for input prices during the period preceding the POI. In addition, Petitioners made currency conversions, where necessary, based on the average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POI, as reported on the Department's website. For the normal value calculations, Petitioners derived the figures for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit from the financial ratios of an Indian producer of certain PSF, Reliance Industries Limited. Fair Value Comparisons Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of certain polyester staple fiber from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based upon comparisons of export price to the NV, calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated calculated dumping margins for certain polyester staple fiber from the PRC range from 87.43 percent to 108.98 percent. Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the decline in customer base, market share, domestic shipments, prices and financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. *See Initiation Checklist* at Attachment II (Injury). Separate Rates and Quantity and Value Questionnaire The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. *See* Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries ( *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* ), (April 5, 2005), available on the Department's Website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The process requires the submission of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in processing the separate rates applications in the antidumping duty investigations of *Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China and Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea* , we have modified the application for this investigation to make it more administrable and easier for applicants to complete. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 58374, 58379 (October 6, 2005), *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas From the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005) and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR 35625, 35629 (June 21, 2005). The specific requirements for submitting the separate-rates application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which will be available on the Department's Website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this initiation notice in the **Federal Register** . The separate rates application is due no later than September 19, 2006. NME Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire For NME investigations, it is the Department's practice to request quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in the petition. In addition, the Department typically requests the assistance of the NME government in transmitting the Department's quantity and value questionnaire to all companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United States, as well as to manufacturers who produce the subject merchandise for companies who were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters is used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents. Although many NME exporters respond to the quantity and value information request, at times some exporters may not have received the quantity and value questionnaire or may not have received it in time to respond by the specified deadline. The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rates application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. This procedure will be applied to this and all future investigations. *See Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR at 21999, *Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea* , 70 FR at 35629, *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 16757, 16760 (April 4, 2006). Appendix I of this notice contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME exporters no later than August 18, 2006. In addition, the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the IA Website: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send the quantity and value questionnaire to those exporters identified in Exhibit General-4 of the petition and the NME government. Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. The *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* , states: {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. *Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin* , at page 6. Initiation of Antidumping Investigation Based upon our examination of the petition on certain polyester staple fiber from the PRC, we find that this petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether imports of certain polyester staple fiber from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these initiations. Distribution of Copies of the Petition In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the public version of the petition has been provided to the government of the PRC. International Trade Commission Notification We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act. Preliminary Determination by the ITC The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain polyester staple fiber from the PRC are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. *See* section 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 13, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) permits us to investigate
(1)a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available at the time of selection, or
(2)exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation (see scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United States during the period October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. Market Total Quantity Terms of Sale Total Value United States 1. Export Price Sales 2. a. Exporter name b. Address c. Contact d. Phone No. e. Fax No. 3. Constructed Export Price Sales 4. Further Manufactured Total Sales Total Quantity: • Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source. Terms of Sales: • Please report all sales on the same terms (e.g., free on board). Total Value: • All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources. Export Price Sales: • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before importation into the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please *do not* include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Constructed Export Price Sales: Generally, a U.S. sales is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. • Please include any sales exported by your company directly to the United States. • Please include any sales exported by your company to a third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States. • If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States. • Please *do not* include any sales of merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures. Further Manufactured: • Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry to the further manufacturer. [FR Doc. E6-11547 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-557-809) Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Malaysia: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-5831 or
(202)482-5253, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the **Federal Register** a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Malaysia for the period February 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, Sapura-Schulz Hydroforming Sdn. Bhd. (Sapura-Schulz), requested an administrative review of its sales for the above-mentioned period. On February 28, 2006, the petitioners 1 requested an administrative review of the sales for the above-mentioned period made by Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd. (Kanzen) and Sapura-Schulz. On April 5, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Malaysia with respect to Sapura-Schulz and Kanzen. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Reviews* , 71 FR 25145 (April 5, 2006). 1 The petitioners in this segment of the proceeding are: Flowline Division of Markovitz Enterprises, Inc.; Gerlin, Inc.; Shaw Alloy Piping products, Inc.; and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). Rescission of Review On June 19, 2006, Sapura-Schulz and the petitioners simultaneously withdrew their requests for an administrative review of the sales made by Sapura-Schulz during the above-referenced period. Consequently, the Department partially rescinded the review with respect to Sapura-Schulz. *See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Malaysia: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 34304 (July 12, 2006). On July 5, 2006, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of sales made by Kanzen. Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations requires that the Secretary rescind an administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. In this case, the petitioners have withdrawn their request for a review of Kanzen within the 90-day period. We have received no other submissions regarding the withdrawals of the requests for review. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Malaysia. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order
(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 14, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-11551 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 051106A] Endangered and Threatened Species: Extension of Public Comment Period on Draft Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Availability; extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: In May 2006, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)announced the availability for public review of the draft revised recovery plan
(plan)for the western and eastern distinct population segments
(DPS)of Steller sea lion ( *Eumetopias jubatus* ). NMFS is extending the public comment period on the recovery plan until September 1, 2006. DATES: Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received by close of business on September 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Walsh, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. Comments may also be submitted by
(1)E-mail to SSLRP@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Sea Lion Recovery Plan. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes;
(2)hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK; or
(3)Facsimile
(fax)to 907-586-7012. Interested persons may obtain the plan for review from the above address or on-line from the NMFS Alaska Region website: *http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Capron at 907-271-6620, e-mail *shane.capron@noaa.gov* ; or Kaja Brix at 907-586-7235, e-mail *kaja.brix@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On May 24, 2006, NMFS published a notice of availability
(NOA)of the plan for the western and eastern DPSs of Steller sea lions (71 FR 29919). The plan contains
(1)A comprehensive review of Steller sea lion status and ecology,
(2)a review of previous conservation actions,
(3)a threats assessment,
(4)biological and recovery criteria for downlisting and delisting,
(5)actions necessary for the recovery of the species, and
(6)estimates of time and cost to recovery. With the publication of the NOA, NMFS announced a 60-day public comment period ending on July 24, 2006. NMFS has received a request by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to extend the public comment period so that its Science and Statistical Committee
(SSC)can fully review and provide comments on the plan. Due to the size and scope of the plan, the SSC will not be able to provide its comments to the Council until late August. The Council will then be able to finalize the comments and provide them to NMFS by September 1. Comments from the SSC and Council will be valuable to the recovery planning process especially with regard to the threats assessment and the development of recovery criteria. In this notice NMFS is extending the public comment period until September 1, 2006, in order to allow adequate time for the SSC and others to thoroughly review and thoughtfully comment on the plan. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: July 14, 2006. Marta Nammack, Acting Division Chief, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-11554 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 071406F] RIN 0648-AU28 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 14 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement; supplement; request for comments. SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is evaluating in a draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS)the environmental impacts of establishing Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs)for deepwater snapper grouper species in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This notice is intended to supplement a notice published January 31, 2002, announcing the preparation of a DEIS for Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP). DATES: Comments must be received by August 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the alternatives should be requested from: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699, fax: 843-769-4520; e-mail: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . Comments should be sent to Mark Sramek, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, phone: 727-824-5311; fax: 727-824-5308. Comments may also be submitted by email to *Mark.Sramek@noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; toll free 1-866-SAFMC-10 or 843-571-4366; e-mail: *kim.iverson@safmc.net* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper grouper fishery operating in the South Atlantic EEZ is managed under the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper FMP, under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Council began considering use of MPAs in 1990. The Council has since held three rounds of scoping meetings and one round of informational public hearings intended to seek public input on criteria, siting, and impacts as they relate to MPAs for deepwater snapper grouper species. The Council decided to consider the implementation of deepwater MPAs in Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper FMP. The Notice of Intent
(NOI)for the DEIS associated with FMP Amendment 14 was published in the **Federal Register** on January 31, 2002 (67 FR 4696). This NOI supplement is intended to update the public on progress of Amendment 14 and the DEIS. The Council has refined the purpose and need for MPAs and has outlined a range of alternatives for inclusion in the DEIS. The primary purpose of implementing these MPAs is to employ a collaborative approach to identify MPA sites with the potential to protect a portion of the population and habitat of long-lived, deepwater snapper grouper species (speckled hind, snowy grouper, warsaw grouper, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, golden tilefish, and blueline tilefish) from directed fishing pressure to achieve a more natural sex ratio, age, and size structure within the proposed MPAs, while minimizing adverse social and economic effects. MPAs are the most effective fishery management tool that allows deepwater snapper grouper species to reach their natural size and age, protects spawning locations, and provides a refuge for early developmental stages of fish species. The Council recognizes that there may be positive impacts from the designation of the proposed sites to non-deepwater species that may co-occur, such as vermilion snapper, red porgy, and gag. The Council defines MPAs within its jurisdiction as a network of specific areas of marine environments reserved and managed for the primary purpose of aiding in the recovery of overfished stocks and to insure the persistence of healthy fish stocks, fisheries, and habitats. Such areas may be over natural or artificial bottom and may include prohibition of harvest indefinitely (i.e., an undefined time period) to accomplish needed conservation goals. The following types of actions are available to the Council for designating MPAs. The Council is focusing on Type 2 management actions to protect deepwater snapper grouper species in Amendment 14. Type 1 - Permanent closure/no-take Type 2 - Permanent closure/some take allowed Type 3 - Limited duration closure/no-take Type 4 - Limited duration closure/some take allowed The Council is also considering implementing measures to provide for on-site enforcement capabilities, including the utilization of vessel monitoring system equipment on specific categories of fishing vessels. The Council intends to request that NMFS implement regulations to prohibit the use of shark bottom longline gear within the MPAs proposed in this amendment. The full suite of alternatives currently being considered for inclusion in the DEIS for FMP Amendment 14 can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES for contact information). A **Federal Register** notice will announce the availability of the DEIS associated with the amendment, as well as a 45-day public comment period, pursuant to regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and to NOAA's Administrative Order 216-6. The Council will consider public comments received on the DEIS in developing the FEIS, and before voting to submit the final amendment to NMFS for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS will announce in the **Federal Register** the availability of the final amendment and FEIS for public review during the Secretarial review period and will consider all public comments prior to final agency action to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the final amendment. Authority: 6 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: July 14, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-11552 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 071206B] Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; affirmative finding renewal. SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant Administrator) has renewed the affirmative finding for the Republic of El Salvador under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This affirmative finding will allow yellowfin tuna harvested in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean
(ETP)in compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Program
(IDCP)by purse seine fishing vessels flying the flag of El Salvador or purse seine fishing vessels operating under the jurisdiction of El Salvador to be imported into the United States. The affirmative finding was based on review of documentary evidence submitted by the Republic of El Salvador and obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the U.S. Department of State. DATES: The renewal is effective from April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney McInnis, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone 562-980-4000; fax 562-980-4018. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* , allows the entry into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the Government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State. The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the IDCP and obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every 5 years, the Government of the harvesting nation must request an affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS will review the affirmative finding and determine whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with IDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation. An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the IDCP. As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Republic of El Salvador or obtained from the IATTC and the Department of State and has determined that El Salvador has met the MMPA's requirements to receive an annual affirmative finding renewal. After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued the Republic of El Salvador's annual affirmative finding renewal, allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by El Salvadorian-flag purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under El Salvadorian jurisdiction. El Salvador's affirmative finding will remain valid through March 31, 2007, subject to subsequent annual reviews by NMFS. Dated: July 14, 2006. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-11553 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS Designation under the Textile and Apparel Commercial Availability Provisions of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) July 17, 2006. AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
(CITA)ACTION: Designation EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006 SUMMARY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
(CITA)has determined that certain polyester and nylon yarns, of the specifications detailed below, classified in subheadings 5402.31.6000, 5402.62.0000, and 5605.00.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. CITA hereby designates apparel articles containing lace fabrics of such yarns, that are sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible ATPDEA beneficiary countries from such fabrics, as eligible for quota free and duty free treatment under the textile and apparel commercial availability provisions of the ATPDEA and eligible under HTSUS subheading 9821.11.10, provided that all other fabrics in the apparel articles are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such yarns are classifiable under HTSUS heading 5602 or 5603, and are wholly formed in the United States. CITA notes that this designation under the ATPDEA renders apparel articles containing lace fabrics of such yarn, sewn or otherwise assembled in an eligible ATPDEA beneficiary country, as eligible for quota-free and duty-free treatment under HTSUS subheading 9821.11.13, provided the requirements of that subheading are met. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria K. Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce,
(202)482 3400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: Section 204 (b)(3)(B)(ii) of the ATPDEA, Presidential Proclamation 7616 of October 31, 2002, Executive Order 13277 of November 19, 2002, and the United States Trade Representative's Notice of Further Assignment of Functions of November 25, 2002. Background: The ATPDEA provides for duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns and fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The ATPDEA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191 (66 FR 7271) and pursuant to Executive Order No. 13277 (67 FR 70305) and the United States Trade Representative's Notice of Redelegation of Authority and Further Assignment of Functions (67 FR 71606), the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the ATPDEA. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests (66 FR 13502). On March 9, 2006, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Encajes, S.A. Colombia, alleging that certain polyester and nylon yarns, as described below, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requested quota- and duty-free treatment under the ATPDEA for apparel articles that contain lace fabrics of such yarns that are sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries. Specifications: 1. Mamilon Metallic Yarn, G-100 1/69 HTSUS subheading: 5605.00.1000 Fiber Content: 100% Metallic Covered in Polyester Cut: Flat Color: Silver and Gold Yarn Size: Silver- 115 denier; Gold - 126 denier Yarn Type: Flat, non-textured Yarn width: 25 microns 2. Cationic Polyester BR 305f96, 120 Ts (Rigid Poly) * HTSUS subheading: 5402.62.0000 Fiber Content: 100% Cationic Polyester Cut: Trilobal Color: Bright Yarn Type: Flat, non-textured Yarn Size: 305 decitex, 96 filaments with 120 twists in “S” by meter 3. Cationic Polyester Bright Flat 2/78F48 dtex at 120 Ts HTSUS subheading: 5402.62.0000 Fiber Content: 100% Cationic Polyester Cut: Trilobal Color: Bright Yarn Type: Flat, non-textured Yarn Size: 78 decitex, 48 filaments, plied, with 120 twists in “S” by meter 4. Tactel Bright HTSUS subheading: 5402.31.6000 Fiber Content: 100% Polyamide 6.6 High Tenacity Nylon Cut: Trilobal Color: Bright Yarn Type: Textured Yarn Size: 312 decitex, 102 filaments, plied, with 450 twists in “S” by meter On March 15, 2006, CITA requested public comments on the petition. See *Request for Public Comments on Commercial Availability Petition Under ATPDEA* , 71 FR 13360 (Mar. 15, 2006). On March 31, 2006, CITA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR)sent memoranda seeking the advice of the Industry Trade Advisory Committees
(ITAC)for Textiles and Clothing and for Distribution Services. No advice was received from either ITAC. On March 31, 2006, CITA and the USTR offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). USTR requested the advice of the U.S. International Trade Commission
(ITC)on the probable economic effects on the domestic industry of granting the request. On April 20, 2006, the ITC provided advice on the petition. Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, CITA determined that the yarns set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On May 8, 2006, CITA and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired. CITA hereby designates as eligible to enter free of quotas and duties under HTSUS subheading 9821.11.10, apparel articles containing lace fabrics of such yarns, of the specifications detailed above, that are sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible ATPDEA beneficiary countries. Apparel article containing lace fabrics of such yarns shall be eligible to enter free of quotas and duties under this subheading, provided all other yarns used in the apparel articles are U.S. formed and all other fabrics used in the apparel articles are U.S. formed from yarns wholly formed in the United States, including fabrics not formed from yarns, if such yarns are classifiable under HTSUS heading 5602 or 5603, and are wholly formed in the United States, subject to the special rules for findings and trimmings, certain interlinings and de minimis fibers and yarns under section 204(b)(3)(B)(vi) of the ATPDEA, and that such articles are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible ATPDEA beneficiary country. An “eligible ATPDEA beneficiary country” means a country which the President has designated as an ATPDEA beneficiary country under section 203(a)(1) of the Andean Trade Preference Act
(ATPA)(19 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)), and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the **Federal Register** , that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 203(c) and
(d)of the ATPA (19 U.S.C. 3202(c) and (d)), resulting in the enumeration of such country in U.S. note 1 to subchapter XXI of Chapter 98 of the HTSUS. James C. Leonard III, Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. [FR Doc. E6-11555 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned Patent Application AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(I)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. patent application number 11/238,155 filed September 28, 2005 entitled “MVA Expressing Modified HIV envelope, gag, and pol Genes,” and foreign rights to Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine with its principal place of business at 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 600, Rockville, MD 20852. This invention is jointly owned by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Army. ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney,
(301)619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment,
(301)619-6664, both at telefax
(301)619-5034. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see ADDRESSES ). Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 06-6363 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 29
Traces to 29 documents
CFR
20 references not yet in our index
  • 12 CFR 563
  • 12 CFR 575
  • 12 CFR 575.7(a)(5)
  • 12 CFR 575.7(a)
  • 12 CFR 575.7(b)(3)
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 14 CFR 33
  • 49 CFR 7
  • 19 USC 2531-2533
  • 40 CFR 82
  • 40 CFR 9
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 5 CFR 1320
  • 7 USC 71-87k
  • 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
  • 688 F. Supp. 639
  • 865 F.2d 240
  • 492 U.S. 919
  • 6 USC 1801
  • 50 CFR 216.24(f)
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking
U.S.C.§ 1467a
U.S.C.§ 3501
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 601
U.S.C.§ 1462
U.S.C.§ 78c
C.F.R.§ 11.35
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 33.76
F. Supp.132 F. Supp. 2d 1
F. Supp.688 F. Supp. 639
F. App'x865 F.2d 240
Cites 49 · 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.