Notices. Notice

7,848 words·~36 min read·/register/2006/07/26/06-6485

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Information Collections Approved by Office of Management and Budget July 13, 2006. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission

(FCC)has received Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Jackson, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC, 20554,

(202)418-2247 or via the Internet at *Dana.Jackson@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0687. *OMB Approval Date:* 5/24/2006. *Expiration Date:* 5/31/2009. *Title:* Access to Telecommunications Equipment and Services by Persons with Disabilities, CC Docket No. 87-124. *Form Number:* N/A. *Estimated Annual Burdens:* 22,500,000 responses; 0.000277 hours per response (1 second); 6,282 total annually hourly burden. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR 68.224—Notice of non-hearing aid compatibility. Every non-hearing aid compatible telephone offered for sale to the public on or after August 17, 1989, whether previously-registered, newly registered or refurbished shall

(a)contain in a conspicuous location on the surface of its packaging a statement that the telephone is not hearing aid compatible, or if offered for sale without a surrounding package, shall be affixed with a written statement that the telephone is not hearing aid compatible; and

(b)be accompanied by instructions. 47 CFR 68.300—Labeling requirements. As of April 1, 1997, all registered telephones, including cordless telephones, manufactured in the United States (other than for export) or imported for use in the United States, that are hearing aid compatible

(HAC)shall have the letters “HAC” permanently affixed. The information collections for both rules contain third party disclosure and labeling requirements. The information is used primarily to inform consumers who purchase and/or use telephone equipment to determine whether the telephone is hearing aid compatible. *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0737. *OMB Approval Date:* 6/8/2006. *Expiration Date:* 6/30/2009. *Title:* Disclosure Requirements for Information Services Provided Under a Presubscription or Comparable Arrangement. *Form Number:* N/A. *Estimated Annual Burdens:* 1,000 responses; 5 hours per response; 5,000 total annually hourly burden. *Needs and Uses:* 47 CFR 64.1501(b) imposes disclosure requirements on information providers that offer “presubscribed” information services. The requirements are intended to ensure that consumers receive information regarding the terms and conditions associated with these services before they enter into a contract to subscribe to them. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11633 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Information Collection(s) Approved by Office of Management and Budget June 23, 2006. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission

(FCC)has received Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)approval for the following public information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronnie Banks, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street., SW., Washington, DC 20554.

(202)418-1099 or via the Internet at *ronnie.banks@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB Control No.:* 3060-0718. *OMB Approval Date:* June 23, 2006. *Expiration Date:* 6/30/09. *Title:* Part 101, Governing the Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Service. *Form No.:* N/A. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 6,364 responses; 36,585 total annual burden hours; approximately .25-3 hours per response. *Needs and Uses:* Part 101 requires various information to be filed and maintained by the respondent to determine the technical, legal and other qualifications of applications to operate a station in the public and private operational fixed services. The information is also used to determine whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity are being served as required by 47 U.S.C. 309. The Commission's staff also uses this information to ensure that applicants and licensee comply with ownership and transfer restrictions imposed by 47 U.S.C. 310. The Appendix attached to the OMB submission lists the rules in Part 101 that impose reporting, recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements approved under OMB Control No. 3060-0718. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11635 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [FCC 06-92] Notice of Debarment AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) debars Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc.'s (Inter-Tel) from all activities associated with the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program. Inter-Tel pled guilty to and was convicted of serious fraud-related felonies against the E-Rate program. We find Inter-Tel's conduct merits a debarment of at least three years, as contemplated by our debarment rule, but in light of several important factors, we will impose a debarment period of one year from the effective date of this Order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A265, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at 202-418-1420 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a summary of the Commission's Notice of Debarment, released June 30, 2006. As an additional precaution to protect the E-Rate program, we put in place two monitoring measures to ensure NEC's compliance upon its re-entry into the E-Rate program. First, we order USAC to review with heightened scrutiny NEC's applications submitted during the first two funding years after re-entry. 1 Second, we order the Administrator to conduct automatic annual audits regarding NEC's compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules governing the E-Rate program, for each of the first two funding periods upon NEC's re-entry. We find these additional precautionary measures are necessary to ensure that E-Rate funds are used only for their intended purpose and that the program is not subject to additional waste, fraud, or abuse. The full text of this Notice is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A-257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCP), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The complete item is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov/eb.* 1 *See Fifth Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 15822-23, para. 44. We note that the Commission currently is considering what particular requirements, if any, that it should apply in conducting heightened review of E-Rate program participants. *See Universal Service Fund Oversight NPRM,* 20 FCC Rcd at 11345, para. 91. Federal Communications Commission. William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-11636 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [FCC 06-91] Notice of Debarment and Order Denying Waiver Petition AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) debars NEC-Business Network Solutions, Inc.'s

(NEC)from all activities associated with the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program. NEC pled guilty to and was convicted of serious fraud-related felonies against the E-Rate program. We find NEC's conduct merits a debarment of at least three years, as contemplated by our debarment rule, but in light of several important factors, we will impose a debarment period of six months from the effective date of this Order. DATES: Debarment commences on the date NEC-Business Network Solutions, Inc. receives the debarment letter or whichever date comes first, for a period of six months. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Lee, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-A265, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Diana Lee may be contacted by phone at 202-418-1420 or e-mail at *diana.lee@fcc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a summary of the Commission's Notice of Debarment and Order Denying Waiver Petition, released June 30, 2006. As an additional precaution to protect the E-Rate program, we put in place two monitoring measures to ensure NEC's compliance upon its re-entry into the E-Rate program. First, we order USAC to review with heightened scrutiny NEC's applications submitted during the first two funding years after re-entry. 1 Second, we order the Administrator to conduct automatic annual audits regarding NEC's compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules governing the E-Rate program, for each of the first two funding periods upon NEC's re-entry. We find these additional precautionary measures are necessary to ensure that E-Rate funds are used only for their intended purpose and that the program is not subject to additional waste, fraud, or abuse. The full text of this Notice is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A-257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCP), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The complete item is also available on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.fcc.gov/eb.* 1 *See Fifth Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 15822-23, para. 44. We note that the Commission currently is considering what particular requirements, if any, that it should apply in conducting heightened review of E-Rate program participants. *See Universal Service Fund Oversight NPRM,* 20 FCC Rcd at 11345, para. 91. Federal Communications Commission. William H. Davenport, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-11631 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WC Docket No. 04-424; DA 06-1449] SBC and Global Crossing Petitions for Declaratory Ruling AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice, termination of proceeding. SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the final termination of the petitions for declaratory ruling of SBC and Global Crossing. No oppositions to the prior notice of termination were received; therefore, interested parties are hereby notified that this proceeding has been terminated. DATES: This proceeding was terminated effective June 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynne Hewitt Engledow, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,

(202)418-1520. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 19, 2006, the Wireline Competition Bureau's Pricing Policy Division issued a Public Notice in the above-listed proceeding stating that the proceeding would be terminated effective 30 days after publication of the Public Notice in the **Federal Register,** unless the Bureau received oppositions to the termination before that date. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 31, 2006. *See* 71 FR 30924, May 31, 2006. The Bureau did not receive any oppositions to the termination of this proceeding within 30 days of **Federal Register** publication of the notice; therefore, the above-listed proceeding was terminated as of *June 30, 2006.* Federal Communications Commission. Thomas J. Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-11901 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [CC Docket Nos. 94-1, 96-262, DA 06-1446] Reconsideration of Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice, termination of proceeding. SUMMARY: This document is a notification of final termination of the petitions for reconsideration of a 1997 Commission order, which established a 6.5 percent productivity-based X-factor and eliminated the sharing requirements in the Commission's price cap rules. The petitions for reconsideration have been withdrawn by the petitioners. No oppositions to the prior notice of termination were received; therefore, interested parties are hereby notified that the proceeding has been terminated. DATES: This proceeding was terminated effective June 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer McKee, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,

(202)418-1530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 19, 2006, the Wireline Competition Bureau's Pricing Policy Division issued a Public Notice in the above-listed proceeding stating that the proceeding would be terminated effective 30 days after publication of the Public Notice in the **Federal Register,** unless the Bureau received an opposition to the termination before that date. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 31, 2006. 71 FR 30925, May 31, 2006. The Bureau did not receive any oppositions to the termination of this proceeding within 30 days of **Federal Register** publication of the notice; therefore, the above-listed proceeding was terminated as of June 30, 2006. Authority: 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 155, 44 FR 18501, 67 FR 13223, 47 CFR 0.291, 1.749. Federal Communications Commission. Thomas J. Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-11900 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [WC Docket No. 02-237; DA 06-1447] Qwest Petition for Clarification of Verizon Physical Collocation Discontinuance Order AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice; termination of proceeding. SUMMARY: This document is a notification of final termination of Qwest's petition for clarification of a 2003 Commission order, which granted Verizon authority to discontinue providing federally-tariffed physical collocation services pursuant to section 201 of the Communications Act. The petition for clarification has been withdrawn by the petitioner. No oppositions to the prior notice of termination were received; therefore, interested parties are hereby notified that this proceeding has been terminated. DATES: This proceeding was terminated effective June 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer McKee, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division,

(202)418-1530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 19, 2006, the Wireline Competition Bureau's Pricing Policy Division issued a Public Notice in the above-listed proceeding stating that the proceeding would be terminated effective 30 days after publication of the Public Notice in the **Federal Register** , unless the Bureau received an opposition to the termination before that date. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 31, 2006. 71 FR 30926, May 31, 2006. The Bureau did not receive any oppositions to the termination of this proceeding within 30 days of **Federal Register** publication of the notice; therefore, the above-listed proceeding was terminated as of June 30, 2006. Federal Communications Commission. Thomas J. Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. [FR Doc. E6-11905 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Statement of Policy. SUMMARY: The FDIC is revising its Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The Statement of Policy clarifies and revises the NHPA Statement of Policy so that it reflects the statutory changes to the NHPA and its implementing regulations. The Statement of Policy is relevant to applications for deposit insurance for *de novo* institutions and applications by state non-member banks to establish a domestic branch and to relocate a domestic branch or main office. DATES: This Statement of Policy is effective on July 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn M. Beach, Review Examiner, Risk Management and Applications Section, Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection

(202)898-6617, or Susan van den Toorn, Counsel, Legal Division

(202)898-8707; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC 20429. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 18, 2005, the FDIC issued a request for comment for a proposed Statement of Policy in the **Federal Register** concerning revisions to its Statement of Policy Regarding the NHPA (SOP). (70 FR 60523). The proposed SOP provided for more efficient processing and timely resolution of matters pertaining to the NHPA and its implementing regulations and incorporated the role of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) in the review process to take into account the responsibilities of the FDIC pursuant to a number of statutes relating to Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. The NHPA sets forth a national policy to promote the preservation of historic resources. It requires, in part, that all agencies of the Federal Government consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council or ACHP) has adopted regulations that implement this requirement (36 CFR part 800). The FDIC considers applications for deposit insurance for *de novo* institutions and applications by state non-member banks to establish a domestic branch and to relocate a domestic branch or main office (collectively, “Covered Applications”) to be undertakings for the purposes of section 106 of the NHPA. Because the NHPA has been amended and the Advisory Council has revised its regulations during the interim period, the FDIC is revising its SOP to conform to those amendments and revisions. Overview of Comments Received The FDIC received 11 comments on the proposed Statement of Policy. Comments were received from the Advisory Council, state historic preservation offices, the Department of Natural Resources of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, financial institutions and individuals. While a number of commenters supported the proposed SOP, others did not. Commenters generally requested that terminology used in the SOP conform to the terminology used in the Advisory Council's implementing regulations. In addition, commenters also suggested clarifying the consultation process, streamlining consultation with state and national organizations, and educating applicants regarding the availability of additional resources valuable to assessing proposed undertakings. Commenters also requested that the SOP be amended to make clear that Applicants and the FDIC will consult with tribes regarding Historic Properties and the identification and evaluation of such properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance where tribes are located or were traditionally located. A commenter suggested that when there may be an adverse effect on an Historic Property that additional background information be included in the Covered Applications. Advisory Council Comment The Advisory Council's comment stated that, “In its present format the ACHP cannot endorse the proposal * * * since it does not comport with our regulations.” The Advisory Council suggested that the FDIC delay revising the SOP “pending further consultation with the ACHP, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), Indian tribes, and a review of the public comments received in response to the **Federal Register** notice.” As an overall issue, the Advisory Council believes that the process described in the proposed SOP did not reflect all the steps outlined in, or the information required by, its regulations. Instead, it believes the proposals included in the SOP modify the process in a manner that may compromise the FDIC's ability to demonstrate that it followed those regulations. The Advisory Council suggested that the modifications to the SOP required the approval of the ACHP through one of the alternatives set forth in its regulation. In particular, it commented that the proposed SOP modifies the coordination of the initial step of the review process, which requires the FDIC to specify if the process is being coordinated with other applicable reviews, identify consulting parties, and develop a plan to involve the public. As such, the ACHP noted that the FDIC must issue delegations of authority letters to applicable State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and THPOs authorizing Applicants to act on the FDIC's behalf to initiate the consultative process. The Advisory Council also commented on its concern about Applicants altering properties prior to considering the NHPA issues and requirements. The Advisory Council raised the issue of “anticipatory demolition” or the modification of a property by an Applicant prior to the determination that no Historic Property was affected. Section 110(k) of the NHPA provides that a Federal agency cannot approve a license (in this case a “Covered Application”) if the Applicant intentionally altered an Historic Property in order to avoid the requirements of the NHPA unless the Federal agency, after consulting with the Advisory Council, makes a finding that the circumstances justify granting the license. The Advisory Council requested that a warning to Applicants relative to section 110(k) of the NHPA be incorporated into the SOP. The Advisory Council also suggested that additional background information be required of the Applicant when an Historic Property may be affected. In order to clarify the concerns raised by the Advisory Council, the FDIC initiated follow-up discussion with the Advisory Council telephonically and requested that they provide clarification regarding their initial comments. The Advisory Council suggested that with regard to Applicants initiating the Section 106 process, “36 CFR 800.2(c)(4) allows for a blanket delegation of authority to all applicants. The publication of this SOP in the **Federal Register** and placement of it in FDIC's Web site constitutes a valid blanket delegation and notice thereof.” The Advisory Council also provided further comments relating to clarification language regarding the issue of “anticipatory demolition,” and additional clarification regarding terminology used in the SOP. Revisions to the Statement of Policy After a review of the comments, the FDIC has modified the proposed SOP. In response to concerns raised by the Advisory Council, the SOP has been amended to state expressly that the purpose is to provide guidance that supplements, but does not alter, FDIC regulations and those of the Advisory Council. The SOP has also been amended so that it is consistent with the regulations implementing section 106 of the NHPA promulgated by the ACHP as amended in 2000. Cross-references have been added to relevant statutes, regulations, and executive orders, but those materials have not been reproduced or extensively summarized in the SOP. In this regard, several areas that could have been viewed as more than general guidance were eliminated or modified. Terminology was conformed to language in the Advisory Council's regulations; most notably, the SOP now references “consultation” with the state and tribal entities, rather than “clearance” from such entities. In addition, the SOP has been revised to specify that the FDIC and Applicants will consult with Indian tribes that may attach religious and cultural significance to sites located off of tribal lands. The SOP also has been modified to clarify when the consultative process may not be required and notes that Applicants must consult with the appropriate Regional Office to confirm that consultation is not required. In response to the comment regarding background information, the SOP now requires that Applicants submit additional information with the Covered Application relating to alternative activities in cases when the proposed undertaking may otherwise result in an adverse effect on an Historic Property. The SOP has been revised to include language regarding section 110(k) of the NHPA and now requires a discussion of alternatives when proposed undertakings would result in an adverse effect on an Historic Property. In response to the Advisory Council's comment regarding the initiation of the section 106 process, the FDIC has amended the SOP so that the SOP is the requisite authorization pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4) for Applicants to initiate consultation with the SHPOs/THPOs and others under the ACHP's regulations and notice of such to all SHPOs/THPOs. After review of all the comments received and for the reasons set forth above, the Board of Directors of the FDIC hereby adopts the Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as set forth below. Statement of Policy Regarding the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 This Statement of Policy

(SOP)provides general guidance regarding the FDIC's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 *et seq.* (NHPA), with respect to certain applications submitted to the FDIC in accordance with governing regulations at 12 CFR part 303. The SOP is intended to supplement, but not alter, the procedures detailed in FDIC regulations and the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA at 36 CFR part 800. Those statutes and regulations will be followed by the FDIC regardless of whether they are highlighted in this SOP. This guidance addresses applications for deposit insurance for *de novo* institutions and applications by state non-member banks to establish a domestic branch and to relocate a domestic branch or main office (collectively, “Covered Applications”). A. Relevant Laws, Executive Orders and Regulations The NHPA and its implementing regulations are the primary Federal historic preservation laws and regulations affecting Covered Applications and outline the historic preservation responsibilities of the FDIC. Among these responsibilities, the FDIC must consider the effects of the Covered Application on Historic Properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council or ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings before they occur. The NHPA and other applicable statutes, regulations, and guidance are as follows: • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 2000, (16 U.S.C. 470 *et. seq.* ). • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). • Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, (AHPA), (16 U.S.C. 469-469c). • Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm). • Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), (25 U.S.C. 3001). • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA), (42 U.S.C. 1996 and 1996a). • Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice (see 59 FR 2935, January 20, 1994). • Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (see 61 FR 28721, June 5, 1996). • 12 CFR part 303. • 36 CFR part 68. • 36 CFR part 800 B. Covered Applications In assessing Covered Applications, the FDIC must consider the effects an Applicant's proposed undertaking may have on an historic property. “Proposed undertaking,” as that term is used in this SOP, refers to any property associated with a Covered Application. An historic property is defined in the NHPA as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource” 1 ; hereafter, referred to as “Historic Property.” Proposed undertakings that may potentially affect historic properties include those that may impact the properties associated with Covered Applications in which the land and structures are of historical, architectural, archeological, religious, or cultural significance, by virtue of the significance of the structure or land itself or its location within an area with historic, architectural, archeological, religious, or cultural significance. The FDIC must consider the impact of the proposed undertaking relative to properties that not only are owned, or to be owned, by the financial institution but also those that are leased, or will be leased, from a third party. 1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 section 301(5). Applicants should consult with the FDIC, appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), Native Hawaiian organizations and other interested parties prior to, or in conjunction with, the filing of a Covered Application, to determine if the proposed undertaking may have a potential effect on an Historic Property. Such consultations are particularly important if there is a question as to whether the proposed undertaking involves an Historic Property, or whether the proposed undertaking may have an adverse effect on the Historic Property. To the extent an Applicant or a particular SHPO/THPO relies upon independent third-parties to review Historic Properties or perform other studies or assessments, such third parties should satisfy the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards. The appropriate Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is to be consulted in situations involving proposed undertakings that may affect historic properties of cultural or religious significance. THPO consultation may be required for properties that are located on tribal lands as well as for those that are located on non-tribal lands but with which Indian tribes may attach a significant religious or cultural meaning. Consultation with the SHPO/THPO may not be necessary if the proposed undertakings are located in recently constructed supermarkets or shopping centers, are properties that have been newly constructed and the Applicant had no ownership interest prior to or during construction, or are newly constructed properties whose immediate prior usage was that of a financial institution and no ground disturbing activities will take place. Consultation may also not be necessary for applications involving messenger services where no new physical location is necessary or temporary or seasonal branches which do not involve permanent structures that will alter the location or surrounding areas. These examples are intended to provide general guidance for Covered Applications where the proposed location does not exhibit historic characteristics that would require a more complex review. The Applicant must consult with the appropriate FDIC Regional Office to confirm that further consultation with the SHPO/THPO is not required. If the proposal may affect an Historic Property, the Applicant should provide the FDIC with information relevant to the Historic Property. This information will facilitate the FDIC's review of the proposal, and should include: • Locational details, such as appropriate maps and photographs; • Description of the historical use of the Historic Property; • Previous ownership, to the extent known; • Plans for destruction or alteration of all or any part of the Historic Property; • Plans for isolation from or alteration of the surrounding environment; • Plans for the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements; • Details regarding any restrictions or conditions affecting the long-term preservation of the property's historic significance; • An analysis of alternatives for activities that may otherwise result in an adverse affect on the Historic Property; • Information received from the SHPO/THPO, as applicable; and • Such other details as appropriate for the proper evaluation of the proposal. Section 110(k) of the NHPA prohibits a Federal agency from granting a license to an applicant who, with the intent to avoid the NHPA's requirements, intentionally significantly adversely affects the historic property, unless the Federal agency makes a finding, after consultation with the ACHP, that the circumstances justify granting the license. This means that any action regarding the property prior to the FDIC making a finding could potentially jeopardize the approval of the application. As a result, it is very important that assessment of the property occur prior to the Applicant taking any action with respect to the proposed undertaking relevant to the Covered Application, especially when such actions include: • Demolition of existing buildings or any change to the external or internal physical structure or use of the property, or of physical features within the property's settings; • Excavation of the land, construction of any new structures, or the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; • Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration; or • The transfer, lease, or sale of a property or any portion of the property by the applicant without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance. The Applicant may not take any action, as defined above, with respect to the property associated with the Covered Application prior to one of the following:

(1)Confirmation from the appropriate Regional Office that the proposed undertaking, based upon the characteristics of the property, does not require further consultation,

(2)submission to the appropriate Regional Office of documented evidence from the appropriate SHPO, THPO, or other relevant party stating that the SHPO, THPO, or other relevant party has reviewed the proposed undertaking and determined that it will have no adverse effect on historic properties,

(3)the receipt of documented evidence from the FDIC that the proposed undertaking will have no adverse effect on historic properties, or

(4)the implementation of an alternate resolution with the FDIC and, as applicable, the appropriate SHPO or THPO, and the Advisory Council. Resolution of the historic preservation aspects of a Covered Application does not constitute approval of the application. C. Authorization To Initiate Section 106 Consultation Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4), the FDIC authorizes Applicants to initiate the consultation process with the appropriate SHPOs/THPOs and others to identify historic properties within the area of potential effects. However, the FDIC remains legally responsible for all findings and determinations. D. Other Consulting Parties At its discretion, the FDIC may also solicit participation from parties other than the Applicant and appropriate SHPO/THPO at any time while a Covered Application is pending. Further, the FDIC may, in its discretion, designate such third parties as Consulting Parties. E. FDIC Determinations and Resolution of Potential Adverse Effects Pursuant to the provisions of the NHPA and 36 CFR part 800, the FDIC will make a determination as to whether the proposed undertaking has an effect on an Historic Property. If the FDIC determines that the proposed undertaking may affect an Historic Property, the FDIC will work closely with the Applicant, the SHPO/THPO, and designated consulting parties to determine whether the proposed undertaking will have an adverse effect on the Historic Property. If there is no adverse effect, the FDIC will proceed with consideration of the Covered Application and any agreed-upon conditions. If there is an adverse effect, the FDIC, pursuant to the ACHP's regulations, will begin consultation to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Consultation may result in a Memorandum of Agreement, which outlines agreed-upon measures the FDIC, Applicant, and other consulting parties may take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. If consultation proves ineffective, the FDIC will proceed pursuant to the ACHP's regulations, including by obtaining, considering, and responding to the ACHP's formal comments on the undertaking. F. Information Requests Public involvement through the comment period for a Covered Application (as provided for in 12 CFR part 303) is an important part of the consultation process. Inquiries by interested parties regarding specific Covered Applications should be directed to the appropriate Regional Director of the FDIC's Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection. Dated at Washington, DC, this 11th day of July 2006. By order of the Board of Directors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie Best, Assistant Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11898 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the **Federal Register** . Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's Office of Agreements (202-523-5793 or *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov* ). *Agreement No.:* 011654-016. *Title:* Middle East Indian Subcontinent Discussion Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; China Shipping Navigation Co., Ltd. d/b/a Indotrans; CMA CGM S.A.; Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie GmbH; MacAndrews & Company Limited; The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia; and United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.). *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment adds Emirates Shipping Line FZE; Shipping Corporation of India, Ltd.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. as parties to the agreement. The amendment also changes Hapag-Lloyd's corporate name to Hapag-Lloyd AG. *Agreement No.:* 011666-003. *Title:* West Coast North America/Pacific Islands Vessel Sharing Agreement. *Parties:* Hamburg-Süd and Polynesia Line Ltd. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment revises the number of vessels provided by Hamburg-Süd under the agreement. *Agreement No.:* 011741-009. *Title:* U.S. Pacific Coast-Oceania Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; Australia-New Zealand Direct Line; CP Ships USA, LLC; and Hamburg-Süd. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment deletes FESCO Ocean Management Limited (“FOML”) as a party, adds a trade name for Hamburg-Süd, and revises the vessel provision and space allocations of the agreement to reflect the acquisition of FOML's assets in the trade by Hamburg Süd. *Agreement No.:* 011741-010. *Title:* U.S. Pacific Coast-Oceania Agreement. *Parties:* A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; Hamburg-Süd; and Hapag-Lloyd AG. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment deletes Australia-New Zealand Direct Line and CP Ships USA, LLC as parties to the agreement, adds Hapag-Lloyd AG as a party, and makes corresponding revisions to the agreement where necessary. *Agreement No.:* 011777-002. *Title:* CP Ships/CCNI Slot Charter Agreement. *Parties:* CP Ships USA, LLC and Compania Chilena de Navegacion Interoceanica S.A. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The amendment deletes CP Ships USA, LLC as a party to the agreement, adds Hapag-Lloyd AG, makes corresponding changes to the agreement where necessary, and restates the agreement. *Agreement No.:* 011966. *Title:* West Coast USA-Mexico & Canada Vessel Sharing Agreement. *Parties:* Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A.; Hamburg-Süd; Compania Chilena de Navegacion Interoceania, S.A.; and Maruba S.C.A. *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The agreement would authorize the parties to operate a service between the U.S. West Coast and the Pacific Coasts of Mexico and Canada and engage in a limited range of cooperative activities. *Agreement No.:* 011967. *Title:* CSAV/NYK Venezuela Space Charter Agreement. *Parties:* Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A. (“CSAV”) and Nippon Yusen Kaisha (“NYK”). *Filing Party:* Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036. *Synopsis:* The agreement authorizes CSAV to charter space to NYK for the carriage of motor vehicles from Baltimore, MD to ports in Venezuela. The agreement expires August 31, 2006. *Agreement No.:* 011968. *Title:* Hanjin-Evergreen Cross Slot Charter Agreement. *Parties:* Evergreen Marine Corp., Ltd. (“Evergreen”) and Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (“Hanjin”). *Filing Party:* Paul M. Keane, Esq.; Cichanowicz, Callan, Keane, Vengrow & Textor, LLP; 61 Broadway; Suite 3000; New York, NY 10006-2802. *Synopsis:* Under the agreement, Evergreen will provide space to Hanjin on its Far East/East Coast of South America service and in return Hanjin will provide space to Evergreen on its U.S. East Coast/East Coast South America service. By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. Dated: July 21, 2006. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11956 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 06-07] Ritco International, Inc. v. Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) by Ritco International, Inc., (“Complainant”), against Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc. (“Respondent”). Complainant contends that Respondent Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc., is an NVOCC under The Shipping Act of 1984. Complainant asserts that they booked 10 containers with Respondent to be shipped to New Delhi (India), and that the destination was verified on the house bill of lading. Complainant further asserts that under the Master Bill of Lading the destination was changed to Nhava Sheva, a port 837 miles away. Complainant contends that due to this mistake they were forced to pay demurrage and detention charges. Complainant alleges that Respondent violated Section 10(d)(1) of the Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1709(d)(1)) by failing to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to or connected with receiving, handling, storing, or delivering property. Respondent prays that the Commission award Complainant for injuries in the amount of $61,618.00 (USD). This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by July 19, 2007, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by November 16, 2007. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11955 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515). Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants: Sony Supply Chain Solutions (America), Inc., 2201 East Carson Street, MD:71, Long Beach, CA 90810. Officers: Yoshio Robert Kooda, Jr., Director (Qualifying Individual). Rintaro Miyoshi, Director. C & S Shipping, LLC, 4360 Casa Grande Cr., Ste. 284, Cypress, CA 90630. Officer: Cristina De La Torre, Member (Qualifying Individual). Agencia Internacional, 599 Central Street, Lowell, MA 01852, Officer: Manuel L. Melo, Owner (Qualifying Individual). Western Shipping America, Inc., 1245-A East Watson Center Road, Carson, CA 90745, Officers: Craig Nakatsumi, President (Qualifying Individual). Cargo Station dba Accord Logistics USA, 2726 Fruitland Ave., Vernon, CA 90058. Officer: Hae Yun Kim, President (Qualifying Individual). Sea & Air International, Inc., 356 E. 74 Street, Suite #2, New York, NY 110021. Officers: Yaniv Risman, Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Nir Shuminer, President. World Transport Agency Limited, Thameside House Kingsway Business Park, Oldfield Road, Hampton Middlesex, TW122HD United Kingdom. Officer: Gerard William Lawler, Managing Director (Qualifying Individual). Ultimate Lines, Inc., 1026 Hickory Street, 3rd Floor, Kansas City, MO 64101. Officers: Angela Rae Nakata, President (Qualifying Individual). Thom Ruffolo, Vice President. Dynamic L.A., A California Corporation, 11755 Sheldon Street, Sun Valley, CA 91352. Officer: Mark Hezroni, President (Qualifying Individual). Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicant: Summit of Washington LLC, 8033 S. 224th Street, Bldg. F, Renton, WA 98032. Officers: Chang K. Choe, CEO (Qualifying Individual). Soon Mon Kim, President. Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants: JK Moving & Storage Inc., 44112 Mercure Circle, Sterling, VA 20166. Officer: Charles S. Kuhn, President (Qualifying Individual). Nick's International Shipping, Inc., 1841 Carter Avenue, Bronx, NY 10457. Officer: Olimpia Sandoval, President (Qualifying Individual). Cargo Control, Inc., 265 E. Merrick Road, Ste. 102, Valley Stream, NY 11580. Officers: Anthony Paolino, Vice President (Qualifying Individual). Thomas Greco, President. Dated: July 21, 2006. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-11957 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 *et seq.* ) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at *http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/* . Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 20, 2006. **A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis** (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034: *1. Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.* , Quincy, Illinois; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Royal Palm Bancorp, Inc., Naples, Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire Royal Palm Bank of Florida, Naples, Florida. **B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis** (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291: *1. PBI Acquisition Corp.* , Minneapolis, Minnesota; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of The First National Bank of Pine City, Pine City, Minnesota. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 21, 2006. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E6-11920 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of Anticipated Availability of Funds for Family Planning Services Grants AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of Population Affairs. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The Office of Population Affairs, OPHS, HHS published a notice in the **Federal Register** of Monday, July 3, 2006 announcing the anticipated availability of funds for family planning services grants. This notice contained an error. The application due date for an eligible State/Population/Area was listed incorrectly. This Notice corrects the application due date for the State of Wisconsin. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Moskosky, 240-453-2888. Correction In the **Federal Register** of July 3, 2006, FR Doc. 06-5956, on page 37985, correct Table I to read: Table I States/populations/areas to be served Approximate funding available Application due date Approx. grant funding date Region I: New Hampshire $1,265,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Vermont 752,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Maine 1,765,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Rhode Island 817,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Connecticut 2,295,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Massachusetts 2,583,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Region II: No service areas competitive in FY 2007. Region III: Washington, DC 1,073,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Central Pennsylvania 2,785,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Virginia 4,528,000 12/01/06 04/01/07 Region IV: Georgia 7,933,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Florida, Greater Orlando area 549,000 06/01/07 09/30/07 Region V: Ohio, Greater Cleveland 2,023,000 12/01/06 04/01/07 Illinois 7,931,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Illinois, Chicago area 205,000 06/01/07 09/30/07 Michigan 7,549,000 12/01/06 04/01/07 Wisconsin 3,405,000 11/01/06 03/01/07 Minnesota, Ramsey County 320,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Region VI: Texas 11,824,000 12/01/06 04/01/07 Region VII: No service areas competitive in FY 2007. Region VIII: South Dakota 1,014,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Wyoming 821,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Region IX: Navajo Nation 640,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 170,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Federated States of Micronesia 411,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Nevada, Washoe County 708,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Region X: Alaska 420,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Oregon 2,452,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Idaho 1,568,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Washington 3,240,000 09/01/06 01/01/07 Washington, Seattle area 159,000 03/01/07 07/01/07 Dated: July 19, 2006. Evelyn M. Kappeler, Acting Director, Office of Population Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-11963 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-34-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the National Coordinator; American Health Information Community Biosurveillance Data Steering Group Meeting ACTION: Announcement of meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces the third meeting of the American Health Information Community Biosurveillance Data Steering Group in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). DATES: August 8, 2006 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (you will need a photo ID to enter a Federal building). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic.html.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be available via Internet access. Go to *http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic.html* for additional information on the meeting. Dated: July 19, 2006. Judith Sparrow, Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. [FR Doc. 06-6485 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

U.S. Code