Rules and Regulations. Temporary rule; apportionment of reserves; request for comments

Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Action: Temporary rule; apportionment of reserves; request for comments
Citation: FR Doc. 06-6406 · Docket No. 060216045-6045-01; I.D. 071806A · 50 CFR 679

Summary

NMFS apportions amounts of the non-specified reserve of groundfish to the yellowfin sole initial total allowable catch (ITAC) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to allow the fishery to continue operating. It is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan for the BSAI.

Dates

Effective July 24, 2006 through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time, December 31, 2006. Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., Alaska local time, August 7, 2006.

Supplementary Information

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2006 ITAC of yellowfin sole in the BSAI was established as 81,346 metric tons by the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 10894, March 3, 2006). The Acting Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the ITAC for yellowfin sole in the BSAI needs to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve in order to continue operations. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b)(3), NMFS apportions 7,500 mt from the non-specified reserve of groundfish to the yellowfin sole ITAC in the BSAI. This apportionment is consistent with § 679.20(b)(1)(ii) and does not result in overfishing of a target species because the revised ITAC is equal to or less than the specification of the acceptable biological catch in the 2006 and 2007 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (71 FR 10894, March 3, 2006). Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the apportionment of the non-specified reserves of groundfish to the yellowfin sole fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 11, 2006. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. Under § 679.20(b)(3)(iii), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action (see ADDRESSES ) until August 7, 2006. This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Dated: July 18, 2006. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-11751 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 141 Monday, July 24, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 915 [Docket No. AO-254-A10; FV06-915-2] Avocados Grown in South Florida; Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreement and Order No. 915 AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to receive evidence on proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 915 (order), which regulates the handling of avocados grown in south Florida. The amendments are proposed by the Florida Avocado Administrative Committee (Committee), which is responsible for local administration of the order. The proposed amendments would: Provide the Committee authority to borrow funds, revise the voting requirements for changing the assessment rate, allow District I nominations to be conducted by mail, and provide the Committee authority to accept voluntary contributions. The proposed amendments are intended to improve the operation and functioning of marketing order program. DATES: The hearing will be held on August 16, 2006, in Homestead, Florida, beginning at 8:30 a.m. until completed. ADDRESSES: The hearing location is: University of Florida, IFAS Conference Room, 18905 SW. 280 Street, Homestead, Florida 33031-3314; telephone: (305) 246-7001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Schmaedick, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 1035, Moab, Utah; telephone: (435) 259-7988, Fax: (435) 259-4945; or Kathleen M. Finn, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938. Small businesses may request information on this proceeding by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative action is instituted pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” This action is governed by the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) seeks to ensure that within the statutory authority of a program, the regulatory and informational requirements are tailored to the size and nature of small businesses. Interested persons are invited to present evidence at the hearing on the possible regulatory and informational impacts of the proposals on small businesses. The amendments proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with the proposals. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Department's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. The public hearing is called pursuant to the provisions of the Act and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900). The proposed amendments are the result of the Committee's review of the order. The Committee met several times in 2005, and drafted proposed amendments to the order and presented them at industry meetings. The proposed amendments were then unanimously approved by the Committee. The Committee's request for a public hearing was submitted to the Department on May 1, 2006. The Committee's proposed amendments to the order are summarized below. 1. Amend the order to provide the Committee authority to borrow funds. This proposal would amend § 915.41, Assessments. 2. Amend the order by revising the voting requirements for Committee recommendations for assessment rate changes from eight concurring votes to a two-thirds majority vote of those Committee members or alternate Committee members in attendance at meetings. This proposal would amend § 915.30, Procedure. 3. Amend the order to allow District 1 nominations, in addition to District 2 nominations, to be conducted by mail. This proposal would amend § 915.22, Nomination. 4. Add authority to the order for the Committee to accept voluntary contributions. This proposal would add a new § 915.43, Contributions. The Committee works with the Department in administering the order. The Committee's proposed amendments have not received the approval of the Department. The Committee believes that the proposed changes would improve the functioning of the order. The Department proposes to make any changes to the order as may be necessary to conform with any amendments thereto that may result from the hearing. The public hearing is being held for the purpose of: (i) Receiving evidence about the economic and marketing conditions which relate to the proposed amendments of the order; (ii) Determining whether there is a need for the proposed amendments to the order; and (iii) Determining whether the proposed amendments or appropriate modifications thereof will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Testimony is invited at the hearing on all the proposals and recommendations contained in this notice, as well as any appropriate modifications or alternatives. All persons wishing to submit written material as evidence at the hearing should be prepared to submit four copies of such material at the hearing and should have prepared testimony available for presentation at the hearing. From the time the notice of hearing is issued and until the issuance of a final decision in this proceeding, Department employees involved in the decisional process are prohibited from discussing the merits of the hearing issues on an ex parte basis with any person having an interest in the proceeding. The prohibition applies to employees in the following organizational units: Office of the Secretary of Agriculture; Office of the Administrator, AMS; Office of the General Counsel, except any designated employee of the General Counsel assigned to represent the Committee in this proceeding; and the Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS. Procedural matters are not subject to the above prohibition and may be discussed at any time. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 915 Avocados, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN SOUTH FLORIDA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 915 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Testimony is invited on the following proposals or appropriate alternatives or modifications to such proposals. Proposals Submitted by Florida Avocado Administrative Committee Proposal Number 1 3. Amend § 915.41 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 915.41 Assessments. (b) The Secretary shall fix the rate of assessment per 55-pounds of fruit or equivalent in any container or in bulk, to be paid by each such handler. At any time during or after a fiscal year, the Secretary may increase the rate of assessment, in order to secure sufficient funds to cover any later finding by the Secretary relative to the expense which may be incurred. Such increase shall be applied to all fruit handled during the applicable fiscal year. In order to provide funds for the administration of the provisions of this part, the committee may accept the payment of assessments in advance, or borrow money on a short-term basis. The authority of the committee to borrow money may be used only to meet financial obligations as they occur and to allow the committee to adjust its reserve funds to meet any additional obligations. Proposal Number 2 4. Amend § 915.30 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 915.30 Procedure. (c) For any recommendation of the committee for an assessment rate change, a two-thirds majority of those in attendance is required. Proposal Number 3 5. Amend § 915.22 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: § 915.22 Nomination. (b) Successor members . (1) The committee shall hold or cause to be held a meeting or meetings of growers and handlers in each district to designate nominees for successor members and alternate members of the committee; or the committee may conduct nominations Districts 1 and 2 by mail in a manner recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary. Such nominations shall be submitted to the Secretary by the committee not later than March 1 of each year. The committee shall prescribe procedural rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, for the conduct of nomination. Proposal Number 4 6. Add a new § 915.43 to read as follows: § 915.43 Contributions. The Committee may accept voluntary contributions. Such contributions shall be free from any encumbrances by the donor and the Committee shall retain complete control of their use. Proposal by Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service Proposal Number 5 Make such changes as may be necessary to make the marketing agreement and the order conform with any amendments thereto that may result from the hearing. Dated: July 18, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-11739 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1220 [No. LS-06-01] Soybean Promotion and Research: Amend the Order to Adjust Representation on the United Soybean Board AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would adjust the number of members for certain States on the United Soybean Board (Board) to reflect changes in production levels that have occurred since the Board was reapportioned in 2003, which became effective with 2004 nominations. These adjustments are required by the Soybean Promotion and Research Order (Order) and would result in an increase in Board membership from 64 to 68 effective with the Secretary's 2007 nominations and appointments. DATES: Written comments must be received by August 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send any written comments to Kenneth R. Payne, Chief; Marketing Programs Branch; Livestock and Seed Program; Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA, Room 2638-S; STOP 0251; Washington, DC 20090-0251. Comments may be sent by facsimile to 202/720-1125 or via e-mail at soybeancomments@usda.gov or http://www.regulations.gov. State that your comments refer to Docket No. LS-06-01. Comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays or on the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mpb/rp-soybean.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch, 202/720-1115 or via e-mail at Kenneth.Payne@usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action. Executive Order 12988 This rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have a retroactive effect. This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (Act) provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under § 1971 of the Act, a person subject to the Order may file a petition with the Secretary stating that the Order, any provision of the Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order, is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the Order or an exemption from the Order. The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district courts of the United States in any district in which such person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, if a complaint for this purpose is filed within 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Agricultural Marketing Service has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), because it only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in production levels that have occurred since the Board was reapportioned in 2003. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened. As such, these changes will not impact on persons subject to the program. There are an estimated 663,800 soybean producers and an estimated 10,000 first purchasers who collect the assessment, most of whom would be considered small entities under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601). Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with OMB regulations [5 CFR part 1320] that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S. C. Chapter 35], the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the Order and Rules and Regulations have previously been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0581-0093. Background and Proposed Changes The Act (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311) provides for the establishment of a coordinated program of promotion and research designed to strengthen the soybean industry's position in the marketplace, and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for soybeans and soybean products. The program is financed by an assessment of 0.5 percent of the net market price of soybeans sold by producers. Pursuant to the Act, an Order was made effective July 9, 1991. The Order established a Board of 60 members. For purposes of establishing the Board, the United States was divided into 31 geographic units. Representation on the Board from each unit was determined by the level of production in each unit. The Secretary appointed the initial Board on July 11, 1991. The Board is composed of soybean producers. Section 1220.201(c) of the Order provides that at the end of each three (3) year period, the Board shall review soybean production levels in the geographic units throughout the United States. The Board may recommend to the Secretary modification in the levels of production necessary for Board membership for each unit. Section 1220.201(d) of the Order provides that at the end of each three (3) year period, the Secretary must review the volume of production of each unit and adjust the boundaries of any unit and the number of Board members from each such unit as necessary to conform with the criteria set forth in § 1220.201(e): (1) To the extent practicable, States with annual average soybean production of less than 3,000,000 bushels shall be grouped into geographically contiguous units, each of which has a combined production level equal to or greater than 3,000,000 bushels, and each such group shall be entitled to at least one member on the Board; (2) units with at least 3,000,000 bushels, but fewer than 15,000,000 bushels shall be entitled to one board member; (3) units with 15,000,000 bushels or more but fewer than 70,000,000 bushels shall be entitled to two Board members; (4) units with 70,000,000 bushels or more but fewer than 200,000,000 bushels shall be entitled to three Board members; and (5) units with 200,000,000 bushels or more shall be entitled to four Board members. Proposed representation on the Board, which would be 68 members, is based on average production levels for the years 2001-2005 (excluding the crops in years in which production was the highest and in which production was the lowest) as reported by the Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service in the “Crop Production 2005 Summary”, which was published in January 2006. The number of geographical units would remain at 30. As a result of Florida recently being decertified as a Qualified State Soybean Board, Florida will become a part of the Eastern Region. This proposed rule would adjust representation on the Board as follows: State Current representation Proposed representation Proposed representation Nebraska 3 4 North Dakota 2 3 Pennsylvania 1 2 Virginia 1 2 Board adjustments as proposed by this rulemaking would become effective, if adopted, with the 2007 nominations and appointments. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1220 Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Marketing agreements, Soybeans and soybean products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that Title 7, part 1220 be amended as follows: PART 1220—SOYBEAN PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1220 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6301-6311. 2. In § 1220.201, the table immediately following paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: § 1220.201 Membership of board. Unit Number of members Illinois 4 Iowa 4 Minnesota 4 Indiana 4 Nebraska 4 Missouri 4 Ohio 3 Arkansas 3 South Dakota 3 Kansas 3 Michigan 3 North Dakota 3 Mississippi 2 Louisiana 2 Tennessee 2 North Carolina 2 Kentucky 2 Pennsylvania 2 Virginia 2 Maryland 2 Wisconsin 2 Georgia 1 South Carolina 1 Alabama 1 Delaware 1 Texas 1 Oklahoma 1 New York 1 Eastern Region (Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey Connecticut, Florida, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, West Virginia, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 1 Western Region (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Hawaii, and Alaska) 1 Dated: July 18, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. 1 [FR Doc. E6-11737 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2005-23007; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-013-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310-200 and -300 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A310-200 and -300 series airplanes. The proposed AD would have required repetitive inspections for cracks and corrosion of the areas behind the scuff plates below the passenger/crew doors and bulk cargo door, and repair of any cracked or corroded part. The proposed AD also would have required repetitive inspections for cracks of the holes of the corner doublers, the fail-safe ring, and the door frames of the passenger/crew door structures. Since the proposed AD was issued, we have determined that that the proposed inspections and terminating action are essentially identical to those of another existing AD. Accordingly, the proposed AD is withdrawn. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA-2005-23007; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2005-NM-013-AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new AD for certain Airbus Model A310-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2005 (70 FR 70048). The NPRM would have required repetitive inspections for cracks and corrosion of the areas behind the scuff plates below the passenger/crew doors and bulk cargo door, and repair of any cracked or corroded part. The NPRM also would have required repetitive inspections for cracks of the holes of the corner doublers, the fail-safe ring, and the door frames of the passenger/crew door structures. The NPRM resulted from reports of corrosion behind the scuff plates at passenger/crew doors and the bulk cargo door and fatigue cracks on the corner doublers of the forward and aft passenger/crew door frames. The proposed actions were intended to prevent such corrosion and fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the door surroundings. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, we realized that we had previously issued AD 98-16-06, amendment 39-10682 (63 FR 40819, July 31, 1998), for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. That AD requires inspections of the lower door surrounding structure to detect cracks and corrosion, and repair if necessary. That AD also requires inspections to detect cracking of the holes of the corner doublers, the fail-safe ring, and the door frames of the door structures; and repair if necessary. In addition, that AD also provides for an optional terminating action for certain inspections. FAA's Conclusions Upon further consideration, we have determined that the inspections and terminating action in AD 98-16-06 are essentially identical to those specified in the NPRM. We are considering superseding AD 98-16-06 to mandate the optional terminating action and refer to the latest service information. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2005-23007, Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-013-AD, which was published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2005 (70 FR 70048). Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 14, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11711 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25421; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-074-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310 airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual by incorporating restrictions for high altitude operations. This proposed AD results from several incidents of pitch oscillations with high vertical loads that occurred during turbulence at high altitudes. We are proposing this AD to prevent pitch oscillations during turbulence, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • 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. • Fax: (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. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2797; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-25421; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-074-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the 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. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all A310 airplanes. The DGAC advises that several incidents of pitch oscillations with high vertical loads occurred during turbulence at high altitudes. Investigation revealed that this is due to a combination of certain altitude and weight conditions when the autopilot is disconnected or severe turbulence is encountered. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Temporary Revision (TR) 2.03.00/21 to the Airbus A310 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). The TR, dated April 11, 2005, defines limitations on the flight envelope at high altitudes in order to reduce the risks of pitch over-control in case of heavy turbulence. The DGAC approved the TR and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-114, dated July 6, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and French Airworthiness Directive.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and French Airworthiness Directive The proposed AD would differ from the parallel French airworthiness directive in that it would require revising the AFM within 10 days after the effective date of this AD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only the DGAC's recommendation of revising the AFM as of the effective date of the French airworthiness directive, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the revision (less than one hour). In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds a 10-day compliance time for completing the required AFM revision to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 62 airplanes of U.S. registry, it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed AFM revision, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $4,960, or $80 per airplane. 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. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2006-25421; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-074-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 23, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310 airplanes, certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from several incidents of pitch oscillations with high vertical loads that occurred during turbulence at high altitudes. We are issuing this AD to prevent pitch oscillations during turbulence, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revision of Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) (f) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations section of the Airbus A310 AFM to include the information in Temporary Revision (TR) 2.03.00/21, dated April 11, 2005. This may be done by inserting a copy of the TR into the AFM. When the TR has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revisions is identical to that in the TR. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (h) French airworthiness directive F-2005-114, dated July 6, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 14, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11722 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25422; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-095-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This proposed AD would require inspecting the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wire harness and the DC fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another, and performing corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report that the FQIS wire harness may not be properly attached at its attachment points or properly separated from the DC fuel pump wire harness. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing between those harnesses or chafing of the harnesses against adjacent airplane structure or components, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or explosion. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • 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. • Fax: (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. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-25422; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-095-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the 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. Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Departamento de Aviação Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. The DAC advises that the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wire harness may not be properly attached at its attachment points and may not be properly separated from the DC fuel pump wire harness, due to the design of the area. This condition, if not corrected, could allow chafing between those harnesses or chafing of those harnesses against adjacent airplane structure or components, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or explosion. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 04, dated November 7, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for a one-time visual inspection of the FQIS harness and DC fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another. The inspection involves examining the condition of the harness attachment points, making sure the harnesses cannot chafe against each other or against adjacent structure or components, and making sure that the harnesses are not attached to each other. As a corrective action if a discrepancy is found, the service bulletin describes procedures for rerouting the DC fuel pump wire harness if any harness is not properly attached or separated. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-03-01, dated April 19, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.” Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 04, does not specify a corrective action if a broken, frayed, cracked, or damaged wire, or a damaged harness, is found. This proposed AD would require that any such damage be repaired in accordance with relevant sections of the standard wiring practices manual. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 494 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $39,520, or $80 per airplane. 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. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-2006-25422; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-095-AD. Comments Due Date (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 23, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from a report that the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wire harness may not be properly attached or separated from the DC fuel pump wire harness. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing between those harnesses or chafing of the harnesses against adjacent airplane structure or components, which could present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or explosion. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Inspecting Harnesses for Proper Attachment and Separation (f) Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time general visual inspection of the FQIS wire harness and the DC fuel pump wire harness to determine if the harnesses are properly attached at their respective attachment points and properly separated from one another, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0025, Revision 04, dated November 7, 2005. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.” Further Corrective Actions (g) If any broken, frayed, cracked, or damaged wire, or a damaged harness, is found: Before further flight, repair the damaged wire or harness in accordance with relevant sections of the standard wiring practices manual. Actions Accomplished Previously (h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with one of the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD. Table 1.—Previous Issues of the Service Information EMBRAER Service Bulletin Revision level Date 145-28-0025 None April 19, 2004. 145-28-0025 01 June 9, 2004. 145-28-0025 02 November 8, 2004. 145-28-0025 03 April 28, 2005. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information (j) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-03-01, dated April 19, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 14, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-11724 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 505 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-05-23393] RIN 2125-AF08 Projects of National and Regional Significance Evaluation and Rating AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments. SUMMARY: Section 1301 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144) established a program to provide grants to States for Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) to improve the safe, secure, and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the United States and to improve the health and welfare of the national economy. Section 1301 requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to establish regulations on the manner in which the proposed projects will be evaluated and rated, in order to determine which projects shall receive grant funding. This proposed rule would establish the required evaluation and rating guidelines for proposed projects. If this rule were adopted, a proposed project would become eligible to be funded under this program only if the Secretary finds that the project meets the requirements of the rule. In making such findings, the Secretary will evaluate and rate each project as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” or “not recommended” based on the results of preliminary engineering, the project justification criteria, and the degree of non-Federal financial commitment. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2006. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit, or fax comments to (202) 366-7909. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward Strocko, Office of Freight Management and Operations, HOFM-1, (202) 366-2997, Ms. Alla Shaw, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1042, or Ms. Diane Mobley, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1372, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office Hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. Alternatively, internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket Facility by using the universal resource locator (URL) http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.archives.gov or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess/gov/nara. Background Section 1301 of SAFETEA-LU establishes a program to finance critical, high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities that address critical national economic and transportation needs. These projects often involve multiple levels of government, agencies, modes of transportation, and transportation goals and planning processes that are not easily addressed or funded within existing surface transportation program categories. Projects of National and Regional Significance would have national and regional benefits, including improving economic productivity by facilitating international trade, relieving congestion, and improving transportation safety by facilitating passenger and freight movement. Additionally, this program would further the goals of the Secretary's Congestion Initiative. 1 1 Speaking before the National Retail Foundation's annual conference on May 16, 2006, in Washington, DC, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta unveiled a new plan to reduce congestion plaguing America's roads, rail and airports. The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce transportation congestion and is available at the following URL: http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/OST/012988.pdf. The benefits of PNRS would accrue beyond local areas and States to the Nation as a whole. A program dedicated to constructing PNRS would improve the safe, secure, and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the United States as well as improve the health and welfare of the national economy. The FHWA specifically invites comments that contribute to an understanding and a quantification of the term national and/or regional economic benefits. Under the proposed regulations, a State seeking a grant for a proposed PNRS would submit to the Secretary an application that demonstrates the ability of the proposed project to enhance the national transportation system, generate national economic benefits, reduce congestion, improve transportation safety, and attract non-Federal investment. The Secretary shall evaluate and rate each proposed project as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” or “not recommended” based on the results of preliminary engineering, the project justification criteria, and degree of non-Federal financial commitments. If the Secretary finds that the proposed project meets the requirements of the regulations, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the project will continue to meets such requirements, the Secretary may issue a letter of intent to obligate an amount from future available budget authority specified in law or execute a full funding grant agreement with a State. A full funding grant agreement would establish the terms of Federal participation in the project, maximum amount of Federal financial assistance, cover the period of time for completing the project, and cover the timely and efficient management of the project in accordance with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and policy, including oversight roles and responsibilities, and other terms and conditions. All the funds authorized by section 1101(a)(15) of SAFETEA-LU are fully designated to the 25 projects in section 1301(m). There are no funds available for distribution beyond those already designated. The 25 projects designated in subsection (m) of section 1301 of SAFETEA-LU are not subject to the criteria established in this part and they will not be subject to the evaluation and rating as proposed in this part. However, all grant recipients for the projects designated in subsection (m) of section 1301 of SAFETEA-LU must submit to the FHWA Office of Operations, through the State Department of Transportation and the FHWA Division Office of the State in which a project is located, a project description prior to the release of designated funds. The FHWA Division Office will review and comment on the project description and forward the description to the FHWA Office of Operations. The FHWA guidance on section 1301 grant recipient project description submission procedures is available from the FHWA Division Offices or the FHWA Office of Operations, and is available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy.htm. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals Section 505.1 Purpose The purpose of this part is to implement the requirements of SAFETEA-LU section 1301(f)(6) which directs the Secretary to establish evaluation and rating guidelines for proposed Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS). A proposed project may be funded under this program only if the Secretary finds that the project meets the requirements of this regulation. Section 505.3 Policy Under current law, surface transportation programs rely primarily on formula capital apportionments to States. Despite the significant increase for surface transportation program funding in the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, current levels of investment are insufficient to fund critical high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities that address critical national economic and transportation needs. Critical high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities often include multiple levels of government, agencies, modes of transportation, and transportation goals and planning processes that are not easily addressed or funded within existing surface transportation program categories. Projects of National and Regional Significance have national and regional benefits, including improving economic productivity by facilitating international trade, relieving congestion, and improving transportation safety by facilitating passenger and freight movement. The benefits of projects described above accrue to local areas, States, and the Nation as a result of the effect such projects have on the national transportation system. A program dedicated to constructing Projects of National and Regional Significance is necessary to improve the safe, secure, and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the United States and improve the health and welfare of the national economy. Section 505.5 Definitions The specific terms that have special significance to a proposal under the Projects of National and Regional Significance program are defined in this section. An “Applicant” for grants shall be limited to State departments of transportation. The FHWA proposes to define “eligible projects” in a flexible manner. Specifically, because of the national and regional scope of the projects to be funded under this section, and because this section is explicitly intended to provide funding for high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities that often include multiple modes of transportation and affect multiple jurisdictions, the FHWA proposes to include those projects that are intended to be multi-modal. The FHWA further proposes to define the term “eligible project costs” to include costs associated with non-highway facilities, though the portions of the projects funded through grants awarded under this program must be otherwise eligible under title 23, United States Code. “Full funding grant agreements” (FFGA) will be used to define the project scope and scale, and time period, and will establish Federal funding levels under title 23 U.S.C. for Projects of National and Regional Significance. Section 505.7 Eligibility This section establishes the minimum size for projects considered to be nationally or regionally significant as having eligible project costs that are reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed the lesser of $500 million or 75 percent of the amount of Federal highway assistance funds apportioned for the most recently completed fiscal year to the State in which the project is located. For those projects that are proposed by multiple States, the FHWA is considering establishing the minimum size for projects as those having eligible project costs that are equal to or exceed the lesser of $500 million or 75 percent of the amount of Federal highway assistance funds apportioned for the most recently completed fiscal year to the State in which the project is located that has the largest apportionment. Section 505.9 Criteria for Grants Under proposed section 505.9(a), a proposal must include, in its project description, evidence that the project is eligible to receive the Secretary's recommendation for funding. The proposal should: (1) Document the results of preliminary engineering; (2) Demonstrate that the project will generate national economic benefits, including creating jobs, expanding business opportunities, and impacting the gross domestic product, including, for example, a detailed project Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) including estimates of regional and national economic benefits expected to result from the project; (3) Demonstrate that the project will reduce congestion in the form of statements of current traffic volume, value, weight, volume to capacity (V/C) ratios, congestion levels, transit times (by time of day), and delays in the affected region and corridor, and projections of each for both the build and no-build scenarios; and (4) Demonstrate that the project will improve transportation safety in the form of statements of the number of crashes, injuries and fatalities in the affected region and corridor, and projections of each for both the build and no-build scenarios. Under proposed section 505.9(b), the grant applicant must disclose to the Secretary any public-private partnership agreements in place or anticipated to be used to support the project. The grant applicant must identify areas where new technologies, including intelligent transportation systems that enhance the efficiency of the project, will be incorporated in the project. Finally, the grant applicant must provide documentation of the results of environmental analysis. Under proposed section 505.9(c), grant applicants must further provide evidence that the proposed project plan provides for the availability of contingency amounts reasonable to cover unanticipated cost increases, that each proposed non-Federal source of capital and operating financing is stable, reliable, and available within the proposed project timetable, and that the project has a non-Federal financial commitment that equals or exceeds the required non-Federal share of the cost of the project. Section 505.11 Project Evaluation and Rating This section describes the rating system the Secretary will use to determine whether a proposed project may be funded under the program. In making such determinations, the Secretary shall evaluate and rate the project as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” or “not recommended” based on the results of preliminary engineering, the project justification criteria, and the degree of non-Federal financial commitment. Section 505.13 Federal Government's Share of Project Cost This section establishes the Federal share for projects funded under this section at 80 percent, unless the grant recipient requests a lesser amount of Federal funding. However, under section 1964 of SAFETEA-LU, Alaska, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Dakota are permitted to use the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 120(b) for determining the non-Federal match requirements for projects listed in section 1301. Section 505.15 Full Funding Grant Agreement This section establishes that a project financed under this subsection shall be carried out through a full funding grant agreement. Section 505.17 Applicability of Title 23, U.S. Code This section provides that funds made available to carry out this program shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if they were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code. This section also prohibits the transfer of funds between agencies. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action would be a significant rulemaking action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would be significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking proposes evaluation and rating procedures for Projects of National and Regional Significance as mandated in section 1301 of SAFETEA-LU. The Projects of National and Regional Significance Program is a newly created and complex program, receiving substantial Federal funding. This action is considered significant because of the substantial State and local government, and public interest in the administration of this newly created program. Because this program is dedicated to constructing critical high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities that address critical national economic and transportation needs, it is essential for the FHWA to develop evaluations and rating criteria to ensure that selected projects will further the goals of the program. This rule is not anticipated to adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. This rulemaking sets forth evaluation and ratings criteria for project proposals in the Projects of National and Regional Significance program, which will result in only minimal cost to program applicants. In addition, this proposed rule would not create a serious inconsistency with any other agency's action or materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required. Regulatory Flexibility Act In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 60l-612) we have evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities and have determined that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule addresses evaluation and rating procedures for States wishing to submit project proposals for Projects of National and Regional Significance. As such, it affects only States and States are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and the FHWA certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120.7 million or more in any 1 year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Accordingly, the FHWA solicits comments on this issue. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA. The FHWA does not anticipate receiving project proposals from ten or more States in any given year because of the nature of the projects eligible under the PNRS program. These projects are critical high-cost transportation infrastructure facilities that often include multiple levels of government, agencies, modes of transportation, and transportation goals and planning processes that are not easily addressed or funded within existing surface transportation program categories. In fact, the Congress has identified only 25 such projects for funding over the 5-year authorization period currently established for this program. National Environmental Policy Act The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that the establishment of the evaluation and rating procedures for proposed Projects of National and Regional Significance, as required by the Congress in SAFETEA-LU, would not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interface with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children) We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not cause any environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking addresses evaluation and rating procedures for the Projects of National and Regional Significance Program and would not impose any direct compliance requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use dated May 18, 2001. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order since it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Regulation Identification Number A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 505 Grant programs-transportation, Highways and roads, Intermodal transportation. Issued on: July 18, 2006. Frederick G. Wright, Jr., Federal Highway Executive Director. In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to add a new part 505 to title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows: PART 505—PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION AND RATING Sec. 505.1 Purpose. 505.3 Policy. 505.5 Definitions. 505.7 Eligibility. 505.9 Criteria for grants. 505.11 Project evaluation and rating. 505.13 Federal government's share of project cost. 505.15 Full funding grant agreement. 505.17 Applicability of Title 23, U.S. Code. Authority: Section 1301 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144); 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48. § 505.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to establish evaluation, rating, and selection guidelines for funding proposed Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS). § 505.3 Policy. A Project of National and Regional Significance should be of national and regional significance, and shall cause quantitatively projected improvements in economic productivity by facilitating international trade and providing congestion relief, and should improve transportation safety by facilitating passenger and freight movement. § 505.5 Definitions. Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions contained in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. In addition, the following definitions apply: Applicant means a State Department of Transportation. Eligible Project means any surface transportation project eligible for Federal assistance under title 23, United States Code, including freight railroad projects and activities eligible under such title. Eligible Project Costs means the costs of: (1) Development phase activities, including planning, feasibility analysis, revenue forecasting, environmental review, preliminary engineering and design work, and other preconstruction activities; and (2) Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of real property (including land related to the project and improvements to land), environmental mitigation, construction contingencies, acquisition of equipment, and operational improvements. Full funding grant agreement (FFGA) means the agreement used to provide Federal financial assistance under title 23 U.S.C. for Projects of National and Regional significance. An FFGA defines the scope of the project, establishes the maximum amount of Government financial assistance for the project, covers the period of time for completion of the project, facilitates the efficient management of the project in accordance with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and policy, including oversight roles and responsibilities, and other terms and conditions. § 505.7 Eligibility. To be eligible for assistance under this program, a project shall have eligible project costs that are reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed the lesser of— (a) $500,000,000; or (b) 75 percent of the amount of Federal highway assistance funds apportioned for the most recently completed fiscal year to the State in which the project is located. § 505.9 Criteria for grants. (a) The Secretary will approve a grant for a Project of National and Regional Significance project only if the Secretary determines, based upon information submitted by the applicant, that the project: (1) Is based on the results of preliminary engineering; (2) Is supported by an acceptable degree of non-Federal financial commitments, including evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the infrastructure facility; and (3) Is justified based on the ability of the project: (i) To generate national and/or regional economic benefits, including creating jobs, expanding business opportunities, and impacting the gross domestic product; (ii) To reduce congestion, including impacts in the State, region, and Nation; (iii) To improve transportation safety, including reducing transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities; (iv) To otherwise enhance the national transportation system; and (v) To garner support for non-Federal financial commitments and provide evidence of stable and dependable financing sources to construct, maintain, and operate the infrastructure facility. (b) In selecting projects under this section, the Secretary will consider the extent to which the project: (1) Leverages Federal investment by encouraging non-Federal contributions to the project, including contributions from public-private partnerships; (2) Uses new technologies, including intelligent transportation systems, that enhance the efficiency of the project; and (3) Helps maintain or protect the environment. (c) In evaluating a non-Federal financial commitment under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Secretary shall require that: (1) The proposed project plan provides for the availability of contingency amounts that the Secretary determines to be reasonable to cover unanticipated cost increases; and (2) Each proposed non-Federal source of capital and operating financing is stable, reliable, and available within the proposed project timetable. In assessing the stability, reliability, and availability of proposed sources of non-Federal financing, the Secretary will consider: (i) Existing financial commitments; (ii) The degree to which financing sources are dedicated to the purposes proposed; (iii) Any debt obligation that exists or is proposed by the recipient for the proposed project; and (iv) The extent to which the project has a non-Federal financial commitment that exceeds the required non-Federal share of the cost of the project. § 505.11 Project evaluation and rating. (a) A proposed project may not be funded under this program unless the Secretary finds that the project meets the requirements of this part and there is a reasonable likelihood that the project will continue to meet such requirements. (b) In making such findings, the Secretary shall evaluate and rate the proposed project as “highly recommended,” “recommended,” or “not recommended” based on the criteria in § 505.9 of this part. Individual ratings of “highly recommended,” “recommended,” or “not recommended” for each of the criteria will also be provided to the applicant. § 505.13 Federal government's share of project cost. (a) Based on engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, and information on the expected use of equipment or facilities, the Secretary shall estimate the project's eligible costs. (b) A grant for the project shall be for 80 percent of the eligible project cost, unless the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage. A refund or reduction of the remainder may only be made if a refund of a proportional amount of the grant of the Federal Government is made at the same time. § 505.15 Full funding grant agreement. In general, a project financed under this section shall be carried out through a full funding grant agreement. The Secretary shall enter into a full funding grant agreement based on the evaluations and ratings required herein, and in accordance with the terms specified in section 1301(g)(2) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, (Pub. L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144). § 505.17 Applicability of Title 23, U.S. Code. Funds made available to carry out this section shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that such funds shall not be transferable to other agencies and shall remain available until expended and the Federal share of the cost of a Project of National and Regional Significance shall be as provided in § 505.13. [FR Doc. E6-11731 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 122 [EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141; FRL-8202-7] RIN A2040-AE86 Extension of Public Comment Period for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water Transfers Proposed Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the public comment period. SUMMARY: On Wednesday, June 7, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency published a proposed rule entitled “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water Transfers Proposed Rule.” As initially published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2006, written comments on the proposed rulemaking were to be submitted to EPA on or before July 24, 2006 (a 45-day public comment period). Since publication, EPA has received several requests for additional time to submit comments. Therefore, the public comment period is being extended for 14 days and will now end on August 7, 2006. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ- OW-2006-0141 by one of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. EPA prefers to receive comments submitted electronically. (2) E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141. (3) Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141. (4) Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0141. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The federal regulations.gov Web sites are “anonymous access” systems, 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 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. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations index at http://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact Jeremy Arling, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2218, e-mail address: arling.jeremy@epa.gov. Dated: July 19, 2006. Brent A. Fewell, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. [FR Doc. E6-11702 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 71 141 Monday, July 24, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. FV-06-327] United States Standards for Grades of Canned Sweet Potatoes AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Canned Sweet Potatoes. The change was requested to reflect newer varieties, new sorting techniques, and canning processes. DATES: Effective August 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Chere L. Shorter, Inspection and Standardization Section, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 0709, South Building; STOP 0247, Washington, DC 20250; fax (202) 690-1527, e-mail Chere.Shorter@usda.gov. The United States Standards for Grades of Canned Sweet Potatoes are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS Web site on the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/ppb.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. Those United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations but are maintained by USDA/AMS/Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is revising the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Sweet Potatoes using the procedures that appear in Part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR Part 36). Background The Food Products Association (FPA) sent petitions from two FPA member food processors to AMS requesting revision of the United States Standards for Grades of Canned Sweet Potatoes. The FPA requested that the USDA revise the definition of the style of “Whole” to reflect newer varieties, new sorting techniques, and canning processes. In particular, the “Beauregard” variety, a variety now widely used in canned sweet potatoes, is oddly shaped and must be cut and trimmed to give the appearance of a whole sweet potato. This variety may or may not be tapered on one end and because of mechanical trimming may not meet the definition of whole. The current definition for the style of “Whole” states that, “Whole means the canned sweet potatoes have the appearance of being essentially whole or almost whole in that the units retain the approximate shape of whole sweet potatoes.” The petitioners want AMS to revise the definition for canned whole sweet potatoes to allow for those that are cylindrical in shape, two inches plus or minus 0.5 inches in length, by 1.5 inches plus or minus 0.25 inches in diameter for 404 × 307 and 603 × 700 can sizes and 1.0 inch plus or minus 0.25 inches in diameter for smaller can sizes. Prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising the grade standards, AMS sought public comments on the petitions. A notice requesting comments on the petitions to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Canned Sweet Potatoes was published in the March 12, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 11802). In response to our request for comments, AMS received one comment from one of the processors that had petitioned for the revision to the standards. This commenter reconsidered its position and did not favor the proposed revision of the standard, noting that the use of a length and diameter requirement to describe a whole sweet potato would be a severe disadvantage to canners. The commenter observed, “that environmental influences make potatoes longer or shorter in years due to natural weather conditions, soil types, and varietal differences.” “This variation in size could result,” according to the commenter, “in products not meeting the length and diameter standards for a portion of the canning season.” The commenter further suggested that the term “Almost Whole” be removed from the standards, arguing that “processors are merely trimming the fibrous ends from the sweet potato that the consumer would have to do themselves.” The commenter further suggested that the definition for “whole” should change to “practically represents a whole sweet potato.” AMS decided to proceed with developing the proposed revision to the standards. In reviewing the standards AMS noted that the term “Whole” implies that a sweet potato has not been cut into smaller pieces and the term “Almost whole” implies that a sweet potato unit should resemble a whole unit with one or both ends trimmed to remove fibrous ends. AMS noted that larger sized sweet potatoes would require excessive trimming to meet the suggested size requirement, as stated in the petition. AMS decided that the better approach to revising the grade standards was to leave the style description for “Whole” unchanged without specific reference to length and size. AMS further decided to remove the style of “Sections,” which is not commercially packed, reducing the confusion between “Sections” and “Pieces, cuts, or cut” styles. The style “Other” was added to account for styles not specifically mentioned in the grade standard. These changes were suggested in order to more clearly delineate the difference between “whole” and “pieces, cuts, or cut” styles, thereby promoting uniformity in grading canned sweet potatoes. In March 2004 a discussion draft that included these changes was sent to FPA and they agreed with the proposed changes to the grade standards. AMS then published the proposed changes in the May 16, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 25804). Only one comment was received in response to this notice. The comment was in favor of the proposed change. Accordingly, AMS believes that the revised U.S. grade standards will provide a common language for trade; a means of measuring value in the marketing of canned sweet potatoes, and provide for the effective utilization of canned sweet potatoes. A copy of the proposed grade standards was posted on the AMS website located at http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/ppb.html and is also available at the address cited above under “For Further Information.” The official grade of a lot of canned sweet potatoes covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Fruits and Vegetables, Processed Products Thereof, and Certain Other Processed Food Products (7 CFR 52.1-52.83). The revised U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Sweet Potatoes will become effective 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: July 18, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-11734 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket Number FV-06-314] United States Standards for Grades of Parsley AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising official grade standards, is soliciting comments on the possible revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley. At a meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review the fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result, AMS has identified the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley for possible revision. AMS is considering proposed revisions that would allow that percentages be determined by count and not weight and eliminate the unclassified category. AMS is seeking comments regarding these changes as well as any other revisions to the parsley standards that may be necessary to better serve the industry. DATES: Comments must be received by September 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax (202) 720-8871, e-mail FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov. Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours. The United States Standards for Grades of Parsley are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call (202) 720-2185; e-mail Cheri.Emery@usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities. AMS makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA/AMS/Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is considering revisions to the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Parsley using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised on July 30, 1930. Background At a meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review the fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. AMS has identified the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley for possible revision. Prior to undertaking detailed work to develop proposed revisions to the standards, AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed revisions and any other comments on the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley to better serve the industry. Currently, parsley is packed and marketed by count and weight. Taking into account these marketing practices, AMS is considering changing the current standards to determine the percentages for tolerances, defects, and the like to be determined by count and not weight. AMS would also eliminate the “Unclassified” category. This section is being removed in all standards when they are revised. This category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary. Additionally, AMS is seeking comments regarding any other revisions that may be necessary to better serve the industry. This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed changes to the United States Standards for Grades of Parsley. Should AMS conclude that revisions are needed it will develop a proposed revised standard that will be published in the Federal Register with a request for comments in accordance with 7 CFR part 36. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: July 18, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-11735 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket Number FV-06-306] United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers). This action is being taken at the request of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, which asked AMS to identify commodities that needed grade standards developed to facilitate commerce. The proposed standards would provide industry with a common language and uniform basis for trading, thus promoting the orderly and efficient marketing of peppers that are not sweet peppers. DATES: Comments must be received by September 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 1661, South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240, fax (202) 720-8871, e-mail FPB.DocketClerk@usda.gov. Comments should make reference to the dates and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours and on the Internet. The draft of the proposed United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) is available either from the above address or by accessing AMS, Fresh Products Branch website at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, at the above address or call (202) 720-2185, e-mail Cheri.Emery@usda.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables that are not requirements of Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS is proposing to establish voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers) using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Background At a meeting of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to identify fresh fruit and vegetables that may be better served if grade standards are developed. As a result, AMS identified peppers that were not sweet peppers as possibly in need of official grade standards. Such standards are used by the fresh produce industry to describe the product they are trading, thus facilitating the marketing of the product. Prior to undertaking research and other work associated to develop the standards, AMS published a notice in the Federal Register (71 FR 9514), on February 24, 2006, soliciting comments on the possible development of United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers). In response to the request for comments, AMS received two comments, one comment was from an industry group, and one from a pepper shipper. Both comments were in support of developing the standards. The comments are available by accessing AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fvfpbdocketlist.htm. Based on the comments received and information gathered, AMS has developed proposed grade standards for peppers other than sweet peppers. This proposal would establish the following grades, as well as a tolerance for each grade: U.S. Fancy, U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2. In addition, there are proposed “Tolerances,” “Application of Tolerances,” and “Size” sections. AMS is proposing to define “Injury,” “Damage,” and “Serious Damage,” with specific basic requirements and definitions for defects, along with definitions for color, diameter, and length. AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers). The adoption of these proposed standards would provide industry with U.S. grade standards similar to those extensively in use by the fresh produce industry to assist in orderly marketing of other commodities. The official grade of a lot or shipment of fresh vegetables covered by U.S. standards is determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed United States Standards for Grades of Peppers (Other Than Sweet Peppers). Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: July 18, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-11740 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service WTO Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provided for in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture. SUMMARY: This notice lists updated quantity trigger levels for products, which may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. This notice also includes the relevant period applicable for the trigger levels on each of the listed products. DATES: Efffective Date: July 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles R. Bertsch, Multilateral Trade Negotiations Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, Room 5524—South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1022, telephone at (202) 720-6278, or e-mail charles.bertsch@usda.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tariffication as a result of the Uruguay Round if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986-88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties to be imposed if the volume of imports of an article exceeds the average of the most recent 3 years for which data are available by 5, 10, or 25 percent, depending on the article. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article. Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the Federal Register information regarding the price and quantity safeguards, including the quantity trigger levels, which must be updated annually based upon import levels during the most recent 3 years. the President delegated this duty to the Secretary of Agriculture in Presidential Proclamation No. 6763, QUANTITY-BASED SAFEGUARD TRIGGER, dated December 23, 1994. The Secretary of Agriculture further delegated the duty to the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service (7 CFR 2.43 (a)(2)). The Annex to this notice contains the updated quantity trigger levels. Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Safeguard Action, published in the Federal Register at 60 FR 427, January 4, 1995. Notice: As provided in section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, consistent with Article 5 of the Agreement on agriculture, the safeguard quantity trigger levels previously notified are superceded by the levels indicated in the Annex to this notice. The definitions of these products were provided in the Notice of Safeguard Action published in the Federal Register , at 60 FR 427, January 4, 1995. Issued at Washington, DC this 3rd day of July, 2006. Michael W. Yost. Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. Annex: Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger Product Trigger level Period Beef 447,684 mt January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Mutton 3,242 mt January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Cream 4,298,187 liters January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Evaporated or Condensed Milk 6,930,879 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Nonfat Dry Milk 898,525 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Dried Whole Milk 3,987,868 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Dried Cream 40,235 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Dried Whey/Buttermilk 70,736 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Butter 11,548,913 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Butter Oil and Butter Substitutes 8,745,001 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Dairy Mixtures 37,038,485 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Blue Cheese 5,047,654 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Cheddar Cheese 12,356,363 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. American-Type Cheese 15,606,654 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Edam/Gouda Cheese 8,318,776 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Italian-Type Cheese 23,130,918 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Swiss Cheese with Eye Formation 34,767,209 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Gruyere Process Cheese 8,355,381 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Lowfat Cheese 3,603,811 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. NSPF Cheese 55,111,280 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Peanuts 15,699 mt April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. Peanut Butter/Paste 3,637 mt January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Raw Cane Sugar 1,096,324 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 1,172,199 mt October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Refined Sugar and Syrups 36,661 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 73,889 October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Blended Syrups 59 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 36 mt October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Articles Over 65% Sugar 170 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 358 mt October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Articles Over 10% Sugar 12,067 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 18,297 mt October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Sweetened Cocoa Powder 660 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 1,008 mt October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Chocolate Crumb 8,542,963 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Lowfat Chocolate Crumb 229,080 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Infant Formula Containing Oligosaccharides 53,153 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Mixes and Doughs 78 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 101 mt October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Mixed Condiments and Seasonings 98 mt October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006. 0 mt October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007. Ice Cream 1,636, 297 liters January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Animal Feed Containing Milk 157,978 kilograms January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Short Staple Cotton 20,042 kilograms September 20, 2005 to September 19, 2006. 29,945 kilograms September 20, 2006 to September 19, 2007. Harsh or Rough Cotton 0 mt August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006. 0 mt August 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. Medium Staple Cotton 1,571,375 kilograms August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006. 2,361,931 kilograms August 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. Extra Long Staple Cotton 9,736,417 kilograms August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006. 8,109,615 kilograms August 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007. Cotton Waste 5,125 kilograms September 20, 2005 to September 19, 2006. 7,692 kilograms Sepember 20, 2006 to September 19, 2007. Cotton, Processed, Not Spun 80,208 kilograms September 11, 2005 to September 10, 2006. 26,883 kilograms September 11, 2006 to September 10, 2007. [FR Doc. 06-6406 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]