Proposed Rules. Proposed rule with request for comments

28,797 words·~131 min read·/register/2006/07/28/06-6526

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

BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Part 457 RIN 0563-AC02 Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

(FCIC)proposes to amend its Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions. The intended effect of this action is to provide policy changes to allow for the expansion of fresh market sweet corn coverage into areas where the crop is produced and when provided in the actuarial documents, and allow coverage for fresh market sweet corn when it is marketed through direct marketing. This change will be applicable for the 2008 and succeeding crop years. DATES: Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business September 26, 2006 and will be considered when the rule is to be made final. Comments on information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 must be received on or before September 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676. Comments titled “Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions” may be sent by any of the following methods: • By Mail to: Director, Product Development Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, 6501 Beacon Drive, Stop 0812, Room 421, Kansas City, MO 64133-4676. • E-Mail: *DirectorPDD@rma.usda.gov.* • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. A copy of each response will be available for public inspection and copying from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., c.s.t., Monday through Friday, except holidays, at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Williams, Risk Management Specialist, Research and Development, Product Development Division, Risk Management Agency, at the Kansas City, MO, address listed above, telephone

(816)926-7730. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has determined that this rule is not significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this proposed rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053 through November 30, 2007. E-Government Act Compliance FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA)establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Executive Order 13132 It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels or government. Regulatory Flexibility Act FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). Federal Assistance Program This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule preempts State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 and 7 CFR part 400, subpart J for the informal administrative review process of good farming practices, as applicable, must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought. Environmental Evaluation This action is not expected to have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environment Impact Statement is needed. Background FCIC proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 457.129 Fresh Market Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions effective for the 2008 and succeeding crop years. The principal changes to the provisions for insuring fresh market sweet corn are: 1. FCIC is proposing to remove the provisions regarding document priority because these provisions are now contained in the Basic Provisions. 2. *Section 1* —FCIC proposes to remove definitions for the terms “excess rain,” “excess wind,” and “freeze.” These terms have been determined to be too limiting as causes of loss and have been replaced by the term “adverse weather conditions” in section 11. This will make this policy consistent with other similar policies and allow all types of adverse weather to be covered. FCIC also proposes to add a definition of “amount of insurance (per acre)” to specify the calculation utilized in computing the dollar amount of coverage. The term is used throughout the policy but was not previously defined. FCIC proposes to add definitions for “allowable cost,” “minimum value” and “net value per container” to clarify how fresh market sweet corn will be valued for the purpose of computing production to count. Also FCIC proposes to revise the definition of “container” for clarity. FCIC also proposes to revise the definition of “harvest” to specify that it is removal of the ear from the plant and it can include either by hand or by machine. The previous definition just referred to picking of sweet corn and the new definition will clarify what is meant by picking. FCIC also proposes to revise the definition of “marketable sweet corn” to include the United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Corn. This will make sweet corn consistent with other crops for which the United States has standards and provide a clear objective standard upon which to determine whether the sweet corn is marketable. 3. *Section 2* —FCIC proposes to remove provisions which state optional units by irrigated and non-irrigated practices are not applicable. This change will allow optional units by irrigated and non-irrigated practices if the Special Provisions provide for a non-irrigated practice. This change is necessary so the fresh market sweet corn crop insurance program may be expanded into areas where the growing conditions and farming practices may not require an irrigated practice. 4. *Section 3(d)* —FCIC proposes to add a new section 3(d) to limit the amount of insurance per acre if a required minimum amount of production has not been produced in at least one of the three most recent crop years. This provision will provide a means to implement amount of insurance limits and prevent potential over-insurance in areas where sweet corn production may not be consistent with the reference maximum dollar amount contained in the actuarial documents. 5. *Section 3(f)* —FCIC proposes to add language to clarify that if sweet corn is damaged in the first stage of growth and other producers in the area would not normally care for the crop, the sweet corn will be deemed as destroyed even if the insured continues to care for the crop. There were questions regarding what occurred if the producer continued to care for the crop. This language clarifies that the crop will still be deemed destroyed, and the claim paid based on the stage the crop was in when the damaged occurred, even if the producer continues to care for the crop. 6. *Section 8(c)* —FCIC proposes to add an exception to the policy to allow coverage for fresh market sweet corn that is grown for direct marketing if such practice is allowed by the Special Provisions or by written agreement. In many areas of the mid-west and eastern states fresh market sweet is grown and marketed directly to the public by way of farmers markets and roadside stands. This change will allow coverage for, and make the policy consistent with many other crops that are marketed by direct marketing. 7. *Section 9(a)* —FCIC proposes to remove paragraph (a), which previously allowed coverage for sweet corn planted in newly cleared land or former pasture land. Coverage for such acreage is normally precluded but fresh market sweet corn provided an exception because of the locations in which it was normally grown. However, as the production of the crop and coverage expand into new areas, there is concern that allowing coverage on newly cleared acreage or former pasture land will create program vulnerabilities. Therefore, FCIC is proposing to eliminate coverage for such acreage, which is consistent with most other crop policies. The following paragraphs are redesignated and restructured for clarity. 8. *Section 9(b)* —FCIC proposes to revise the provisions previously contained in section 9(b)(2), now redesignated as section 9(b), to specify that in areas with fall or winter planting periods, not only must the final planting date have passed, it must be considered practical to replant. If both conditions are met, the producer will have the option to replant and receive the replant payment or not replant and accept an indemnity based on the stage of growth when the damage occurred. Previously the provision only referred to the final planting date having passed and did not specify that it still must be practical to replant. This change will eliminate any ambiguity in the provision. 9. *Section 10(f)* —FCIC proposes to revise the provision that states that the end of the insurance period is 100 days after the date of planting or replanting. Flexibility is needed because there may be new varieties or the program may be expanded into areas where the sweet corn may take shorter or longer to mature. This change will allow FCIC to set the appropriate end of the insurance period in the Special Provisions. 10. *Section 11(a)* —FCIC is proposing to add “adverse weather conditions,” “wildlife,” “volcanic eruption,” and “earthquake” as insured causes of loss. This change will provide consistency in the causes of loss found in other crop insurance policies. The previous list provided the predominate causes of loss that posed a risk to the production of sweet corn in the limited areas where insurance was available. However, if sweet corn gets expanded into other areas, these other causes of loss may become a risk to the crop and there is no reason that such causes should not also be covered. They pose no greater risk to sweet corn than they do to any other crop and the risks will be included in the premium rates. FCIC also proposes to remove the terms “excess rain,” “excess wind,” “freeze,” “hail,” and “tornado.” As stated above, the term “adverse weather conditions” includes the individually named causes of loss that are being removed. 11. *Section 11(b)(1)* —FCIC proposes to move the provisions that specify that any loss of production due to insects and disease will not be insured unless there is no effective control measures to section 11(a) and allow such causes to be covered unless damage occurs due to insufficient or improper application of pest or disease control measures. This change will standardize provisions among other crop insurance policies. 12. *Section 11(b)* —FCIC proposes to add a new section 11(b)(1) that would specify that failure to harvest in a timely manner is not an insured cause of loss unless harvest is prevented by one of the other insurable causes of loss. Since fresh market sweet corn is a perishable commodity, failure to timely harvest can cause damage even though no other cause of loss may have occurred. This change will ensure that only damage due to natural causes are covered. FCIC also proposes to revise section 11(b)(2) to add provisions that clarify that an indemnity will not be paid for a quarantine, boycott or refusal to accept production. This is consistent with language in other crop policies and ensures that coverage is only provided for natural causes. 13. *Section 13(b)* —FCIC proposes to restructure the current provisions into section 13(a) and add a new section 13(b) to require notice of loss be given at least 15 days before any production will be sold by direct marketing so an appraisal can be made. If damage occurs after this appraisal, an additional appraisal will be made. The appraisals and any acceptable production records will be used to determine production to count. Since insurance is now being provided for direct marketed crops, and there may not be any verifiable records associated with such sales, this change is necessary to more accurately determine the value of production to count. 14. *Section 13(c)* —FCIC proposes to add a new section 13(c) to specify that failure to give timely notice of loss when sweet corn will be sold by direct marketing will result in an amount of production to count that is not less than the dollar amount of insurance per acre for the applicable stage if such failure results in the inability to properly determine the value of the production. Without the ability to appraise the crop before any is sold in direct marketing it will make it difficult to impossible to determine whether production was accurately reported because, unlike crops not sold through direct marketing, there are no independent sources to verify production. 15. *Section 14(b)(4)(ii)* —FCIC proposes to remove the provisions pertaining to the 1998 and 1999 crop years because they are obsolete and specifying the coverage level of fifty-five percent, which is the coverage level for catastrophic risk protection coverage. 16. *Section 14(b)(5)* —FCIC proposes to add an example of the claim for indemnity calculations at the end of paragraph (b)(5) for clarity. 17. *Section 14(c)(1)(v)* —FCIC is proposing to add a new section 14(c)(1)(v) that specifies that the value of production to count for direct marketed production will not be less than the dollar amount of insurance per acre for such production if the producers fails to provide timely notice that the production will be sold through direct marketing. Because of the inability to verify records of sales, approved insurance providers must have the opportunity to appraise the production before any of it is sold. This is consistent with other crops sold through direct marketing. 18. *Section 14(c)(2)* —FCIC is proposing to clarify that to be considered as production to count, the unharvested sweet corn must be marketable. If marketable, the value of appraised unharvested sweet corn production will not be less than the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the number of containers appraised by the minimum value per container shown in the actuarial. However, even if not marketable, the unharvested production will be considered as production to count if the production is later harvested and sold. This ensures that the producer is only indemnified for actual losses. 19. *Section 14(c)(3)* —FCIC is proposing to modify and clarify that the value of all harvested production that is marketable and sold (except production sold by direct marketing) and unsold. The value of sold production will be the greater of:

(1)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers harvested by the minimum value; or

(2)the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the average net value per container from all sweet corn sold by the total number of containers of sweet corn sold. The value of sweet corn that is unsold but is marketable will be the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers harvested by the minimum value. Should the actual value for each container of sold production be used and the allowable costs then subtracted it would be time consuming and complex. FCIC is proposing to use the average net value, which will allow the approved insurance provider to average the prices received and use this single price to calculate the value of all sold production, except that sold through direct marketing. This will simplify the calculation and ensure that the producer receives the proper value for the production. The provision also is intended to clarify that if the production is sold, it will be considered as production to count, regardless of whether or not it is marketable. It is only if the production is damaged or defective due to an insurable cause, not marketable and not sold will it not be included as production to count. 20. *Section 14(c)(4)* —FCIC is proposing to add provisions specifying the value of production that is sold by direct marketing. If all conditions are met for insurability and timely notice is given, the value will be the greater of the actual value received by the insured, or the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of sweet corn sold by direct market by the minimum value per container. Since it is impossible to obtain verifiable sales records, it would create a program vulnerability to allow the sales price for the direct marketed production to be used. 21. *Section 16(b)(1)* —FCIC is proposing to specify the value of harvested production insured under the Minimum Value Option will be the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the average net value per container from all sweet corn by the total number of containers of sweet corn sold. As stated above, should the actual value for each container of sold production be used and the allowable costs then subtracted would be time consuming and complex. FCIC is proposing to use the average net value, which will allow the approved insurance provider to average the prices received and use this single price to calculate the value of all sold production, except that sold through direct marketing. This will simplify the calculation and ensure that the producer receives the proper value for the production. 22. *Section 16(b)(2)* —FCIC is proposing to specify that the value of marketable production that is not sold will be the dollar amount obtained by the total number of containers of such sweet corn by the minimum value shown in the actuarial documents. This will ensure consistency with other policy provisions that require all sold production to be considered as production to count, regardless of whether such production is marketable. It is only if the production is damaged or defective due to an insurable cause, not marketable, and not sold will it not be included as production to count. 23. *Section 16(c)* —FCIC is proposing to add provisions to specify that if the Minimum Value Option is applicable, the total value of any production that is sold by direct marketing will be the greater of the actual value received by the insured or the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of sweet corn sold by direct market by the minimum value per container shown in the actuarial documents. As stated above, since it is impossible to obtain verifiable sales records, it would create a program vulnerability to allow the sales price for the direct marketed production to be used. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457 Crop insurance, Fresh market sweet corn, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Rule Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to amend 7 CFR part 457 for the 2008 and succeeding crop years as follows: PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(1), 1506(p). 2. Amend 457.129 as follows: A. Revise the introductory text. B. Remove the paragraph regarding priority preceding section 1. C. Remove the reference of “457.8” from the definitions of “Crop year,” and “Practical to replant;” and from sections 3(a), 3(c), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9(a), 9(b), 10, 11(a), 11(b), 12(a), 12(c), and 13. D. Add definitions in section 1 for “Allowable cost,” “amount of insurance (per acre),” “minimum value;” and “net value per container;” and remove the definitions of “excess rain,” “excess wind,” and “freeze;” revise the definitions of “container,” “harvest,” and “marketable sweet corn,” and amend the definition of “crop year” by removing the word “(Definitions).” E. Revise section 2. F. Amend section 3(a) by removing the words “(Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities)”. G. Amend section 3(c) by removing the words “(Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities)”. H. Redesignate section 3 paragraphs

(d)and

(e)as paragraph

(e)and (f), add a new paragraph (d), and revise newly redesignated paragraph (f). I. Amend section 4 by removing the words “(Contract Changes)”. J. Amend section 5 by removing the words “(Life of Policy, Cancellation, and Termination)”. K. Amend section 6 by removing the words “(Report of Acreage)”. L. Amend section 7 by removing the words “(Annual Premium)”. M. Amend opening paragraph of section 8 by removing the words “(Insured Crop)”. N. Revise section 8(c)(3). O. Revise section 9. P. Amend opening paragraph in section 10 by removing the words “(Insurance Period)”. Q. Revise section 10(f). R. Revise section 11. S. Amend sections 12(a) and

(c)by removing the words “(Replanting Payment)”. T. Revise section 13. U. Amend section 14(b)(2) by removing the words (see section 3(d)), and adding in its place “(see section 3(e)). V. In section 14, revise paragraphs (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(i), and (c)(3). Add new paragraphs (c)(1)(v), (c)(4), and add an example immediately following paragraph (b)(5). W. In section 16, revise paragraph (b); redesignate current paragraph

(c)as (d), and add a new paragraph (c). The revisions and additions to § 457.129 to read as follows: § 457.129 Fresh market sweet corn crop insurance provisions. The fresh market sweet corn crop insurance provisions for the 2008 and succeeding crop years are as follows: 1. Definitions. *Allowable cost.* The dollar amount per container for harvesting, packing, and handling as shown in the Special Provisions. *Amount of insurance (per acre).* The dollar amount of coverage per acre obtained by multiplying the reference maximum dollar amount shown on the actuarial documents by the coverage level percentage you elect. *Container.* The unit of measurement for the insured crop as specified in the Special Provisions. *Harvest.* Separation of ears of sweet corn from the plant by hand or machine. *Marketable sweet corn.* Sweet corn that is sold or grades U.S. No. 1 or better in accordance with the requirements of the United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Corn. *Minimum Value.* The dollar amount per container shown in the actuarial documents that we will use to value marketable production to count. *Net value per container.* The dollar value of packed and sold fresh market sweet corn obtained by subtracting the allowable cost and any additional charges specified in the Special Provisions from the gross value per container of sweet corn sold (this result may not be less than zero). 2. Unit Division A basic unit, as defined in section 1 of the Basic Provisions, will also be established for each planting period. 3. Amounts of Insurance and Production Stages

(d)If specified in the Special Provisions, we will limit your amount of insurance per acre if you have not produced the minimum amount of production of fresh market sweet corn contained in the Special Provisions in at least one of the most recent three crop years.

(f)Any acreage of sweet corn damaged in the first stage to the extent that the majority of producers in the area would not normally further care for it, will be deemed to have been destroyed even though you continue to care for it. The indemnity payable for such acreage will be based on the stage the plants had achieved when the damage occurred. 8. Insured Crop

(c)* * *

(3)Grown for direct marketing, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions or by written agreement. 9. Insurable Acreage In addition to the provisions of section 9 of the Basic Provisions:

(a)Any acreage of sweet corn damaged during the planting period in which initial planting took place must be replanted if:

(1)Less than 75 percent of the plant stand remains;

(2)It is practical to replant; and

(3)If, at the time the crop was damaged, the final day of the planting period has not passed.

(b)Whenever sweet corn initially is planted during the fall or winter planting periods and the final planting date for the planting period has passed, but it is considered practical to replant, you may elect:

(1)To replant such acreage and collect any replant payment due as specified in section 12. The initial planting period coverage will continue for such replanted acreage; or

(2)Not to replant such acreage and receive an indemnity based on the stage of growth the plants had attained at the time of damage. However, such an election will result in the acreage being uninsurable in the subsequent planting period. 10. Insurance Period

(f)100 days after the date of planting or replanting, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. 11. Causes of Loss

(a)In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Basic Provisions, insurance is provided only against the following causes of loss that occur during the insurance period:

(1)Adverse weather conditions;

(2)Fire;

(3)Wildlife;

(4)Volcanic eruption;

(5)Earthquake;

(6)Insects, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of pest control measures;

(7)Plant disease, but not damage due to insufficient or improper application of disease control measures; or

(8)Failure of the irrigation water supply, if caused by an insured cause of loss that occurs during the insurance period.

(b)In addition to the causes of loss excluded in section 12 of the Basic Provisions, we will not insure against damage or loss due to:

(1)Failure to harvest in a timely manner unless harvest is prevented by one of the insurable causes of loss specified in section 11(a); or

(2)Failure to market the sweet corn unless such failure is due to actual physical damage caused by an insured cause of loss specified in section 11(a) that occurs during the insurance period. For example, we will not pay you an indemnity if you are unable to market due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of any person to accept production. 13. Duties In The Event of Damage or Loss In addition to the requirements contained in section 14 of the Basic Provisions, if you intend to claim an indemnity on any unit:

(a)You also must give us notice not later than 72 hours after the earliest of:

(1)The time you discontinue harvest of any acreage on the unit;

(2)The date harvest normally would start if any acreage on the unit will not be harvested; or

(3)The calendar date for the end of the insurance period.

(b)If insurance is permitted by the Special Provisions or by written agreement on acreage with production that will be sold by direct marketing, you must notify us at least 15 days before any production from any unit will be sold by direct marketing. We will conduct an appraisal that will be used to determine the value of your production to count for production that is sold by direct marketing. If damage occurs after this appraisal, we will conduct an additional appraisal if you notify us that additional damage has occurred. These appraisals, and any acceptable production records provided by you, will be used to determine the value of your production to count.

(c)Failure to give timely notice that production will be sold by direct marketing will result in an appraised amount of production to count of not less than the dollar amount of insurance (per acre) for the applicable stage if such failure results in our inability to accurately determine the value of production. 14. Settlement of Claim

(b)* * *

(4)* * *

(ii)For catastrophic risk protection coverage, the result of multiplying the total value of production to be counted (see section 14(c)) by fifty-five percent; and

(5)Multiplying the result of section 14(b)(4) by your share. For example: You have a 100 percent share in 65.3 acres of fresh market sweet corn in the unit (15.0 acres in stage 1 and 50.3 acres in the final stage), with a dollar amount of insurance of $600 per acre. You are only able to harvest 5,627 containers of sweet corn. The net value of all sweet corn production sold ($3.11 per container) is greater than the Minimum Value per container ($2.50). The 5,627 containers sold × $3.11 average net value per container = $17,500 value of your production to count. Your indemnity would be calculated as follows: 1 15.0 acres × $600 amount of insurance = $9,000 and 50.3 acres × $600 amount of insurance = $30,180; 2 $9,000 × .65 (percent for stage 1) = $5,850 and $30,180 × 1.00 (percent for final stage) = $30,180; 3 $5,850 + $30,180 = $36,030 amount of insurance for the unit; 4 $36,030 − $17,500 value of production to count = $18,530 loss; 5 $18,530 × 100 percent share = $18,530 indemnity payment.

(c)* * *

(1)* * *

(iii)That is damaged solely by uninsured causes;

(iv)For which you fail to provide acceptable production records; or

(v)From which insurable production is sold by direct marketing and you fail to meet the requirements contained in section 13(b) of these Crop Provisions;

(2)The value of appraised sweet corn production as follows, which will not be less than the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the number of containers of appraised sweet corn by the minimum value per container shown in the actuarial documents for the planting period:

(i)Unharvested marketable sweet corn production (unharvested production that is damaged or defective due to insurable causes and is not marketable will not be counted as production to count unless such production is later harvested and sold);

(3)The value of all harvested production of sweet corn from the insurable acreage, except production that is sold by direct marketing as specified in section (c)(4) below:

(i)For sold production, will be the greater of:

(A)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of sweet corn sold by the minimum value contained in the actuarial documents; or

(B)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the average net value per container from all sweet corn sold by the total number of containers of sweet corn sold.

(ii)For marketable sweet corn production that is not sold, will be the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the number of containers of such sweet corn by the minimum value shown in the actuarial documents for the planting period. Harvested production that is damaged or defective due to insurable causes and is not marketable will not be counted as production to count unless such production is sold.

(4)If all the requirements of insurability are met, the value of insurable production that is sold by direct marketing will be the greater of:

(i)The actual value received by you for direct marketed production; or

(ii)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of sweet corn sold by direct marketing by the minimum value per container shown in the actuarial documents. 16. Minimum Value Option

(b)In lieu of the provisions contained in section 14(c)(3) of these Crop Provisions, the total value of harvested production that is not sold by direct marketing will be determined as follows:

(1)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the average net value per container from all sweet corn sold by the total number of containers of sweet corn sold (this result may not be less than the minimum value option amount shown in the actuarial documents);

(2)For marketable sweet corn production that is not sold, the value of such production will be the dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of such sweet corn by the minimum value shown in the actuarial documents for the planting period. Harvested production that is damaged or defective due to insurable causes and is not marketable will not be included as production to count.

(c)If all the requirements of insurability are met, the value of insurable production that is sold by direct marketing will be the greater of:

(1)The actual value received by you for direct marketed production; or

(2)The dollar amount obtained by multiplying the total number of containers of sweet corn sold by direct marketing by the minimum value per container shown in the actuarial documents. Signed in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2006. James Callan, Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-12066 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25419; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-055-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 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 certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors with new, stronger latches, and other specified actions. This proposed AD results from reports of certain lavatory waste compartment doors opening during flight due to movement of the waste compartment during takeoff, because the mini-latches installed on the doors of those compartments lose their strength over time. We are proposing this AD to prevent the inability of the waste compartment doors to adequately contain a fire inside the lavatory waste compartment, and consequent uncontained fire and smoke within a lavatory during flight. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 28, 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone

(425)227-1175; 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-2006-25419; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-055-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 Aviac a o Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The DAC advises that it has received reports of certain lavatory waste compartment doors opening during flight due to movement of the waste compartment during takeoff. An investigation conducted by the parts manufacturer, C&D Aerospace, revealed that the existing mini-latches installed on certain doors in the lavatory ( *i.e.* , forward lavatory waste compartment, aft lavatory amenity door, aft lavatory storage door, and service doors) lose their strength over time. This can cause the doors to open easily with a single flap spring force or movement of the waste compartment during takeoff, or to be easily opened mistakenly by passengers by any kind of involuntary touch. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the inability of the waste compartment door to adequately contain a fire inside the lavatory waste compartment, and consequent uncontained fire and smoke within a lavatory during flight. Relevant Service Information EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors with new, stronger latches. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-11-01, effective December 8, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005, refers to C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin 170-18616-25-023, dated June 23, 2005, as an additional source of service information for replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors. The C&D Aerospace service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors with new, stronger latches, and other specified actions. The other specified actions include removing/installing inserts, applying bonding, and installing certain placards. This service bulletin also provides procedures for reworking certain lavatory mirrors. (The C&D Aerospace service bulletin is included in the EMBRAER service bulletin). Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil 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 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 “Differences Between Proposed AD, Brazilian Airworthiness Directive, and Service Information.” Differences Between Proposed AD, Brazilian Airworthiness Directive, and Service Information Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-11-01, effective December 8, 2005, is applicable to “all EMBRAER ERJ 170( ) aircraft models in operation.” However, this does not agree with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005, which states that only certain ERJ 170 airplanes are affected and identifies them by serial number. This proposed AD would be applicable only to the airplanes listed in the service bulletin. This difference has been coordinated with the DAC. EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005; and C & D Aerospace Service Bulletin 170-18616-25-023, dated June 23, 2005, describe procedures for replacing the forward and aft lavatory mirrors. These procedures were included in the service bulletins at the request of an operator. This proposed AD does not include a requirement for replacing these mirrors. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Parts Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Replacement of lavatory waste compartment door latches 4 $80 $0 $320 54 $17,280 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-2006-25419; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-055-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 28, 2006. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005. Unsafe Condition

(d)This AD results from reports of certain lavatory waste compartment doors opening during flight due to movement of the waste compartment during takeoff, because the mini-latches installed on those doors lose their strength over time. We are issuing this AD to prevent the inability of the waste compartment doors to adequately contain a fire inside the lavatory waste compartment, and consequent uncontained fire and smoke within a lavatory during flight. 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. Replacement of Mini-Latches on Certain Lavatory Waste Compartments Doors

(f)Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Replace the mini-latches for the forward and aft lavatory waste compartment doors by accomplishing all the actions, except for the forward and aft lavatory mirror rework, specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005. Note 1: EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-25-0024, dated July 21, 2005, refers to C&D Aerospace Service Bulletin 170-18616-25- 023, dated June 23, 2005, as an additional source of service information for replacing the mini-latches on certain lavatory waste compartment doors required by paragraph

(f)of this AD. 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)Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-11-01, effective December 8, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-12106 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY [USCBP-2006-0015] 19 CFR Parts 24, 113, and 128 RIN 1505-AB39 Fees for Customs Processing at Express Consignment Carrier Facilities AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security; Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) to reflect changes to the customs user fee statute made by section 337 of the Trade Act of 2002 and section 2004(f) of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004. The statutory amendments made by section 337 concern the fees payable for customs services provided in connection with the informal entry or release of shipments at express consignment carrier facilities and centralized hub facilities, and primarily serve to replace the annual lump sum payment procedure with a quarterly payment procedure based on a specific fee for each individual air waybill or bill of lading. Section 2004(f) amended the user fee statute to authorize, for merchandise that is formally entered at these sites, the assessment of merchandise processing fees provided for in 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(9), in addition to the fees that are currently assessed on individual air waybills or bills of lading. Lastly, pursuant to the authority established in 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(B)(i), this document proposes to raise the existing $0.66 fee assessed on individual air waybills or bills of lading to $1.00 to more equitably align it with the actual costs incurred by CBP in processing these items. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by *docket number,* by *one* of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number USCBP-2006-0015. • Mail: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the electronic docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Submitted comments may also be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Joseph Clark at

(202)572-8768. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Jackson, Office of Field Operations, Trade Enforcement and Facilitation, Tel.:

(202)344-1196. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)also invites comments that relate to the economic effects that might result from this proposed rule. If appropriate to a specific comment, the commenter should reference the specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Background I. Statutory Changes Made by Section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 On August 6, 2002, the President signed into law the Trade Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210, 116 Stat. 933. Section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 amended section 13031(b)(9) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)) by adding new requirements for the payment of user fees for customs services provided by CBP to express consignment carrier facilities and centralized hub facilities in connection with imported letters, documents, shipments or other merchandise to which informal entry procedures apply. The principal changes involve the following: 1. In the introductory text of section 58c(b)(9)(A), which refers to reimbursements and payments required from a centralized hub facility, an express consignment carrier facility, or a small airport or other facility, the words “the processing of merchandise that is informally entered or released” were replaced by the words “the processing of letters, documents, records, shipments, merchandise, or any other item that is valued at an amount that is less than $2,000 (or such higher amount as the Secretary of the Treasury may set by regulation pursuant to section 498 of the Tariff Act of 1930), except such items entered for transportation and exportation or immediate exportation.” [It is noted that the statutory monetary amount was subsequently amended to “$2,000 or less * * *” as discussed later in this document.] 2. Section 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii) was replaced by new text identifying, in the case of an express consignment carrier facility or a centralized hub facility, a fee of $0.66 per individual air waybill or bill of lading. Prior to this amendment, clause

(ii)required an express consignment carrier facility or a centralized hub facility to make the following reimbursements and payments:

(a)A reimbursement to Customs (hereinafter referred to as “CBP” to reflect the transfer of the U.S. Customs Service to the Department of Homeland Security and the agency's subsequent renaming as Bureau of Customs and Border Protection) of an amount equal to the cost of the services provided by CBP for the facility during the fiscal year; and

(b)An annual payment by the facility to the Secretary of the Treasury in an amount equal to the annual reimbursement made under 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii)(I). 3. Subparagraph

(B)was redesignated as subparagraph

(C)and a new subparagraph

(B)was added. New subparagraph

(B)consists of clauses

(i)through

(iii)which provide as follows:

(a)Clause

(i)authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust the $0.66 fee prescribed in subparagraph (A)(i) to an amount that is not less than $0.35 and not more than $1.00 per individual air waybill or bill of lading. Clause

(i)further provides that the adjustment may not be made before fiscal year 2004 and not more than once per fiscal year and must involve publication of notice of the proposed adjustment in the **Federal Register** with opportunity for public comment;

(b)Clause

(ii)provides that the payment required by subparagraph (A)(ii) is the only payment required for reimbursement of CBP in connection with the processing of an individual air waybill or bill of lading in accordance with that subparagraph and for providing services at express consignment carrier facilities or centralized hub facilities, except that CBP may require those facilities to cover CBP expenses for adequate office space, equipment, furnishings, supplies, and security.

(c)Clause (iii)(I) provides that the payment required under subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(ii) is to be paid to CBP on a quarterly basis by the carrier using the facility in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Clause (iii)(II) states that 50 percent of the amount of payments received under subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(ii) will, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1524, be deposited in the Customs

(CBP)User Fee Account and used to directly reimburse each appropriation for the amount paid out of that appropriation for costs incurred in providing services to express consignment carrier facilities or centralized hub facilities. Such amounts are to remain available until expended for the provision of customs services to these entities. Clause (iii)(III) directs the remaining 50 percent of the amount of payments received under subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(ii) to be paid to the Secretary of the Treasury. *See* 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(B)(iii)(I)—(III). Section 337(b) of the Trade Act of 2002 provides that the amendments made by section 337(a) take effect on October 1, 2002. The following points are noted regarding the effect of the statutory changes made by section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002: 1. The overall effect of section 337(a) is to replace two equal annual lump sum payments (one representing a reimbursement of the cost of services provided and the other representing a payment in lieu of the payment of fees for the informal entry or release of merchandise) with a quarterly payment procedure based on a specific fee for each individual air waybill or bill of lading. 2. The $2,000 limit referred to in the amended statute reflects the amount that CBP, pursuant to section 498 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1498), has adopted in § 143.21 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 143.21) as the limit for shipments of merchandise that may be entered under informal entry. 3. The replacement of the word “merchandise” by a reference to “letters, documents, records, shipments, merchandise, or any other item” in the amended statute ensures that other imported articles or items that are eligible for informal entry under § 143.21 will be subject to the new fee. The one exception concerns those articles (for example, articles of plastics or rubber, textiles and textile articles, leather articles, and footwear) for which the informal entry limit is set at $250 in § 143.21; for those articles having a value greater than $250 but less than $2,000, the new fee standard will apply even though those articles are not subject to informal entry procedures under § 143.21. 4. Each shipment transported by affected carriers is issued an individual air waybill that is used, among other things, for tracking purposes. Because the law applies the fee to each individual air waybill, the use of master bills or other practices of consolidation or convenience by these entities, the billing system used by these entities for their customers, and the number of entries filed, are irrelevant to the application of the fee. In effect, the individual air waybill subject to the fee is the bill at the lowest level, *i.e.* , not a master bill. An example of an individual airway bill or bill of lading is a bill representing an individual shipment that has its own unique bill number and tracking number, where shipment is assigned to a single ultimate consignee, and no lower (more disaggregated) bill unit exists. 5. Under the amended statute, responsibility for payment rests with the carrier rather than with the facility. This does not represent a substantive change in the case of centralized hub facilities because the hub facility owner and the carrier using the facility are always the same. However, it does represent a shift in responsibility for payment, from the facility to the carrier, in the case of express consignment carrier facilities that are not owned and operated by the different carriers that use them. 6. The affected carriers became responsible for payment of the new fee for each individual covered transaction as of October 1, 2002, effective date of the amendments made by section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002. Therefore, even though the first payment to CBP under the new payment procedure would not have taken place until after the close of the last quarter of the year 2002, the statute obligated the affected carriers to maintain adequate records to determine the proper amount to be paid starting on the effective date of the statutory amendments. II. Statutory Changes Made by Section 2004(f) of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004 (“Trade Act of 2004”) was signed into law by the President on December 3, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-429, 18 Stat. 2593). Section 2004(f) of the Trade Act of 2004 made further amendments to section 13031(b)(9) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)). The principal changes made by section 2004(f) are set forth below: 1. In the introductory text of section 58c(b)(9)(A), which refers to reimbursements and payments to CBP required from a centralized hub facility, an express consignment carrier facility, or a small airport or other facility, the words “less than $2,000” were replaced by the words “$2,000 or less”. 2. Section 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii), which requires an express consignment carrier facility or a centralized hub facility to reimburse CBP in an amount of $0.66 per individual air waybill or bill of lading, was amended by:

(a)Adding the language, “[N]otwithstanding subsection (e)(6)” at the beginning of the section; and

(b)restructuring this provision by creating two new sub-clauses. The first new sub-clause, identified as (A)(ii)(I), sets forth the existing reimbursement fee of $0.66 per individual air waybill or bill of lading. The second new sub-clause, identified as (A)(ii)(II), pertains to situations where merchandise is formally entered and mandates, in addition to the fee specified in sub-clause (A)(ii)(I), reimbursement to CBP of the fee provided for in subsection (a)(9) (the merchandise processing fee), if applicable. *See* 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(9). 3. To accommodate the amendments to subparagraph (A)(ii), discussed above, conforming changes were made to section 58c(b)(9)(B)(ii) whereby the statutory reference to “(A)(ii)” was replaced with a reference to “(A)(ii)(I) or (II)”. III. Proposal To Increase Certain Reimbursement Fees Payable by Express Consignment Carrier Facilities and Centralized Hub Facilities As noted above, 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(B)(i), as amended by section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust the $0.66 fee prescribed in 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii) to an amount that is not less than $0.35 and not more than $1.00 per individual air waybill or bill of lading. This section further provides that notice of any proposed adjustment and the reasons therefore must be published in the **Federal Register** with opportunity for public comment. Pursuant to this authority, this document proposes to increase the existing $0.66 reimbursement fee payable to CBP by express consignment carrier facilities and centralized carrier facilities to $1.00. The proposed fee increase is necessary to more adequately reimburse CBP for the actual costs incurred by the agency in processing individual air waybills and bills of lading at these sites. It is also noted that in addition to the regular costs associated with processing individual air waybills and bills of lading, CBP must also incur the expenses associated with relocating CBP personnel when a carrier opts to close a carrier-owned express consignment facility and open a new facility at a different location. The current fee schedule does not sufficiently cover CBP's regular expenses at these sites. As discussed previously, the amendments to section 58c(b)(9)(B) made by section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 direct that the money collected by CBP from this one payment be sent to two different accounts. Section 58c(b)(9)(B)(iii)(II) requires fifty percent of the payment to be deposited in the CBP User Fee Account and used to directly reimburse each appropriation for the amount paid out of that appropriation for the costs incurred in providing services to express consignment carrier facilities and centralized hub facilities. Such amounts are available until expended for the provision of custom services for these facilities. Section 58c(b)(9)(B)(iii)(III) requires the remaining fifty percent to be paid to the Secretary of the Treasury in lieu of an informal entry Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF). Prior to the 2002 amendment, the law provided for two payments: One payment was made to CBP as the fee to cover agency expenses incurred by providing customs services relating to staffing for the onsite processing and release of cargo at express consignment carrier facilities, and the second payment was made to the Treasury in lieu of the informal entry Merchandise Processing Fee (MPF). Thus, the current payment structure provides for a single payment collected by CBP and deposited in two separate sub-accounts, whereas previously two separate fees were paid to CBP and Treasury. In neither case did fees exceed direct costs. In fact, collected fees were well below direct costs. Under this proposal, fees will approach costs up to the new statutory cap. CBP has conducted a financial analysis of the costs incurred by CBP in providing services to express consignment facilities and centralized hub facilities in Fiscal Years

(FY)2004 and 2005. The collection/cost data reveals that at the close of FY 2004, the half of the 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii) payment intended to defray the cost of services to express consignment and centralized hub facilities left the agency with a deficit with the agency collecting only 78% of the monies expended to provide those services. In FY 2005, CBP collected only 70% of these costs. Projections for FY 2006 indicate that the deficit will increase again due to the fact that certain CBP expenses, such as reimbursable wages for CBP employees at these sites, will increase. The following table sets forth the collection/cost data associated with CBP's processing of individual air waybills and bills of lading at express consignment facilities and centralized hub facilities for FY 2004 and 2005, as well as a projected financial analysis for FY 2006: Fiscal year Estimated package volume Total collections (based on $.66 cents per bill) CBP's retained portion of collected amount (based on $.33 cents per bill) CBP costs CBP cost per bill CBP deficit 2004* 47,243,205 $31,180,516 $15,590,258 $19,945,704 0.42 ($4,355,446). 2005* 45,364,139 29,940,332 $14,970,166 21,393,520 0.47 ($6,423,354). 2006** 43,549,574 28,742,718 $14,371,359 ($21,774,787 based on $.50 cents collected per bill if the payment is raised to $1.00) 22,545,880 0.52 ($8,174,521) (($771,093) based on $.50 cents collected per bill if the payment is raised to $1.00). * FY 2004 and 2005 costs information from the CBP Cost Management Information System. ** FY 2006 costs equal FY 2005 costs plus 27 new CBP Officer positions Grade 11 Step 1 with a prorated onboard date of April 2006. New position cost information derived from the FY 2006 CBP position model and does not include any equipment, training, travel costs, etc. The financial projections for FY 2006 indicate that CBP will incur a per bill cost of $0.52. If the payment is raised to $1.00, as proposed, CBP will collect $0.50 per bill (the other $0.50 to be deposited with the Secretary of the Treasury in lieu of the informal entry Merchandise Processing Fee). Based on these figures, and subject to the monetary limits set by law, CBP proposes raising the $0.66 payment to $1.00 so that the half of the payment associated with providing services to express consignment and centralized hub facilities is aligned with the actual costs incurred by CBP. The other half of the payment, collected in lieu of the MPF, is set by statute at equal to the payment for providing services to express consignment and centralized hub facilities. Affected Regulatory Provisions Regulations implementing those provisions of 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9) that were amended by section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 and section 2004(f) of the Trade Act of 2004 are contained in parts 24 and 128 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR parts 24 and 128). Part 24 sets forth rules pertaining to CBP's financial and accounting procedures. The provision within part 24 most directly affected by the statutory changes discussed above is § 24.23, which concerns fees for processing merchandise and which, in paragraph (b)(2)(ii), reflects the terms of subparagraph

(A)of the statute prior to its amendment by sections 337(a) and 2004(f). Also affected is § 24.17, which provides for reimbursable services of CBP employees. Specifically, paragraph (a)(12) of that section refers to reimbursement of the compensation and expenses of a CBP employee assigned to a centralized hub facility for the purpose of processing express consignment shipments under part 128 of the regulations, and paragraph (a)(13) contains a similar reimbursement reference regarding a CBP employee assigned to an express consignment carrier facility, with the facility being responsible for the reimbursement in each case. Part 128 sets forth regulations that apply specifically to express consignment carrier and hub facilities and their operators and users. The only provision within part 128 that is directly affected by the statutory changes discussed above is § 128.11, which concerns the express consignment carrier and hub facility application process. Paragraphs (b)(7)(iv) and

(v)of that section require the express consignment entity to agree to timely pay all reimbursable costs and to pay to CBP all relocation, training and other costs and expenses incurred by CBP in relocating necessary staff to or from the facility. This document proposes amendments to title 19 of the CFR to address the statutory changes made by section 337(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 and 2004(f) of the Trade Act of 2004. In addition to the proposed changes to parts 24 and 128 mentioned above, this document also contains a proposed amendment to the CBP bond provisions of part 113 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR part 113). The proposed changes to the regulations contained in this document are discussed below. Discussion of Proposed Amendments Section 24.17 In this section, which includes in paragraph

(a)a list of various contexts in which parties-in-interest are required to reimburse CBP for services rendered, it is proposed to remove paragraph (a)(12) (which refers to services rendered at a centralized hub facility) and paragraph (a)(13) (which refers to services rendered at an express consignment carrier facility) and redesignate paragraph (a)(14) as paragraph (a)(12). The proposed removals are necessary because those two provisions:

(1)correspond to clause

(ii)of subparagraph

(A)of the statute as it existed prior to the amendments made by sections 337(a) and 2004(f); and

(2)are inconsistent with the “only payment required” language in clause

(ii)of new subparagraph

(B)of the statute. Section 24.23 In this section, it is proposed to modify paragraph

(b)to incorporate the terms of the proposed $1.00 fee (increased from the existing $0.66 fee) and paragraph

(c)to include conforming cross-reference changes. The following points are noted regarding the proposed paragraph

(b)changes: 1. In paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), which concerns the 0.21 percent *ad valorem* fee (merchandise processing fee) applicable to merchandise that is formally entered or released, a new sentence is added with a cross-reference to new paragraph (b)(4) to reflect the terms of section 2004(f) whereby, in the case of an express consignment carrier facility or centralized hub facility, merchandise that is formally entered is subject to a $1.00 per individual air waybill or bill of lading fee and, if applicable, to a merchandise processing fee. 2. Paragraph (b)(2), which concerns fees for informal entry or release, is revised to refer to only the $2, $6, and $9 specific fees which, under the statute and the regulations, have never applied to express consignment carrier facilities, centralized hub facilities, and small airports and other facilities. The revised paragraph (b)(2) text includes new exception language regarding merchandise covered by paragraph (b)(3) or paragraph (b)(4). 3. A new paragraph (b)(3) concerning small airports and other facilities is added. It is based on the relevant portion of current paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of § 24.23 that is proposed to be removed in the revision of paragraph (b)(2). The fee for small airports and other facilities is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)(i). The fee is determined by application of 31 U.S.C. 9701. New paragraph (b)(3) follows that statutory structure. 4. Paragraph (b)(4) is entirely new. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii)(I) and (II), as amended by sections 337(a) and 2004(f), paragraph (b)(4) requires each carrier using an express consignment carrier facility or a centralized hub facility to pay to CBP a fee (set forth in 19 U.S.C. 58c(b)(9)(A)(ii)(I) at $0.66 and now proposed to be increased to $1.00, as discussed above) assessed on each individual air waybill or individual bill of lading and, if merchandise is formally entered, the 0.21 *ad valorem* fee, if applicable. The assessment of this fee on each individual air waybill or bill of lading means that each shipment transported by a carrier and processed by CBP will be assessed the fee. Each shipment transported by a carrier and processed by CBP is represented by an individual air waybill and subject to the fee. Therefore, these proposed regulations apply the fee to each shipment covered by an individual air waybill. For purposes of these proposed regulations, an individual airway bill is the bill at the lowest level, and would not include a master bill. An example of an individual air waybill or bill of lading is a bill representing an individual shipment that has its own unique bill number and tracking number, where the shipment is assigned to a single ultimate consignee, and no lower bill unit exists. The use of master bills of lading, or other practices of consolidation by or for the convenience of the carrier, or its customers or for any other reason is irrelevant to the application of this user fee intended to cover CBP's costs associated with processing each individual shipment as represented by each individual air waybill or bill of lading. Moreover, the number and kind of entries filed, and the carrier's billing system for charging its customers, are irrelevant factors and are not considered in determining the fee's application. Paragraph (b)(4) also includes the quarterly payment requirement specified in clause

(iii)of new subparagraph

(B)of the amended statute. As in the case of paragraph (b)(3), discussed above, the text of paragraph (b)(4) includes the “processing of letters, documents * * *” and the “$2,000 or less (or such higher amount * * *)” language of the introductory text of subparagraph

(A)of the amended statute, and also contains the exception reference regarding items entered for transportation and exportation or immediate exportation that clearly is relevant to the transaction-by-transaction assessment of the $1.00 fee. The text of paragraph (b)(4) also proposes some additional requirements and conditions regarding the payment of this fee, of which the following points are noted: 1. In addition to identifying the due date for each timely quarterly payment as well as the CBP address to which the payments must be sent, the text sets forth specific information that must accompany the payment. The specified information is necessary to enable CBP to verify whether the proper amount of fees required under the statute has been paid. 2. The text allows carriers to make adjustments of overpayments and underpayments in the next quarterly payment, similar to what is allowed in the case of railroad car and passenger arrival fees under § 24.22(d) and

(g)of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 24.22(d) and (g)). However, if an adjustment is not made in the next quarterly payment, a request for a refund of an overpayment must be made within one year, similar to the practice in the case of harbor maintenance fees under § 24.24(e)(4)(ii) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 24.24(e)(4)(ii)), and interest will accrue in the case of an underpayment from the date payment was initially due. 3. Paragraph (b)(4)(iv) provides that the underpayment or failure of a carrier using an express consignment carrier facility or a centralized hub facility to pay all applicable fees owed pursuant to paragraph

(b)may result in the assessment of penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 and any other action authorized by law. Section 113.64 In this section, which specifies the international carrier bond conditions, it is proposed to add a new sentence at the end of paragraph

(a)to refer to the obligation of the carrier and its surety under the bond in the event that the carrier fails to pay the fees required under § 24.23(b)(4). This provision is modeled on the approach taken in the case of quarterly payments of passenger processing fees. Section 128.11 In this section, which concerns the express consignment facility application process, the following changes are proposed: 1. Paragraph (b)(2) is revised to require inclusion of a list of users of the facility with the application if the applicant is an express consignment carrier facility (a list of users is not necessary in the case of a hub facility because the operator of the facility and the user of the facility are one and the same). This information is necessary to assist CBP in verifying proper payment of the statutory fees. 2. Paragraphs (b)(7)(iv) and (b)(7)(v), which refer to elements of the superseded statutory reimbursement concept, have been replaced with new provisions. New paragraph (b)(7)(iv) provides for an agreement on the part of an express consignment carrier facility to provide quarterly, and update, a list of all carriers using the facility and is intended to assist CBP in verifying the proper payment of fees by those carriers. Paragraph (b)(7)(v) refers to an agreement on the part of a hub facility or an express consignment carrier to timely pay all applicable processing fees prescribed in § 24.23. Comments Submitted comments will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and § 103.11(b) of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR 103.11(b)), on regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th St., NW., Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted documents should be made in advance by calling Joseph Clark at

(202)572-8768. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not considered a “significant regulatory action” as defined in E.O. 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory assessment is not required. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis CBP has examined the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, codified at 5 U.S.C. chapter 6) and has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA). A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). In this proposed rulemaking, small businesses are those that employ fewer than 1,500 employees or have annual revenues under $6.5 million. Based on annual data collected by CBP, there are 22 businesses that will be affected by the proposed rule. Of these, 10 are large businesses, 11 are small businesses, and 1 is a small, foreign-owned business. Sixteen of these companies (both large and small) are members of an association that owns and operates a consignment facility. That association acts as a single respondent for its members. Reason for Agency Action; Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule Pursuant to the authority established in 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(9)(b)(ii), it is proposed to raise the existing $0.66 fee assessed on individual air waybills or bills of lading to $1.00 to more equitably align it with the actual costs incurred by CBP in processing these items. Number and Types of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply As previously noted, there are 12 small businesses that will be affected by the proposed rule. These companies are either courier services (NAICS code 492110) or arrange freight transportation (NAICS code 488510). An estimated 91 percent of the bills of lading submitted for fee assessment were from the three largest affected companies (approximately 41 million waybills in FY 2005). The waybills from the remaining large companies accounted for 2 percent (approximately 865,000 in FY 2005). The remaining 1.5 million bills of lading were submitted by the 12 small businesses. Based on data from FY 2003 to FY 2005, half of the large companies have experienced annual increases in bills of lading; the remainder have experienced annual decreases. Data for the 12 small businesses also show increases and decreases in waybills. If current trends continue, a net increase in waybills of approximately 20 percent annually is projected for these small companies over the next several years. In FY 2005, the 12 small businesses submitted 1.5 million bills of lading at a cost of $1.0 million ($0.66 per bill of lading). If, in FY 2006, 1.9 million bills of lading were submitted, this would result in a cost of $1.3 million under the current fee structure. Under the proposed fee of $1.00 per bill, we would expect costs to reach $1.9 million, a difference of $0.6 million. The $0.6 million represents only 4 percent of the total increase in fees CBP expects to be incurred as a result of growth in bills of lading and the fee increase proposed in this rule. CBP collected annual revenue data for the 12 small businesses affected. To determine the impact of the proposed rule on annual revenues, CBP calculated the projected difference in costs between the old and proposed fee and compared that (as a percentage) to average annual revenues. Based on these calculations, CBP estimates that the proposed rule will have a 5-percent impact or less on annual revenues for 5 of the small businesses. The rule will have a 5 to 10-percent impact on one of the companies and a greater than 10- percent impact on four companies. CBP could not find data for one small business, and one was foreign-owned. In the course of CBP's examination of the impacts on annual revenues for these small businesses, CBP has determined that these entities will likely pass the cost of the increased fee on to their customers to the extent that they are able. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, CBP concludes that this proposed rule could have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. CBP is seeking comments on any of the regulatory requirements that could minimize the cost to small businesses. Comments may be submitted to the regulatory docket using any of the methods listed under “Comments” or ADDRESSES above. All input received during the public comment period will be considered. Reporting and Recordkeeping This proposed rule will change current paperwork requirements. No new professional skills will be necessary for the preparations of the reports and records. For more detail, see “Paperwork Reduction Act” below. Other Federal Rules This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other federal regulations. Regulatory Alternatives CBP did not consider any alternatives to the proposed rule. Paperwork Reduction Act The collections of information in this document are contained in §§ 24.23 and 128.11 (19 CFR 24.23 and 128.11). This information is used by CBP to determine whether user fees required by statute have been properly paid. The likely respondents are business organizations including importers and air carriers. The collections of information for paying fees for customs services provided in connection with the informal entry or release of shipments at express consignment carrier facilities and centralized hub facilities was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1651-0052. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), CBP has submitted to OMB for review the following adjustments to the information provided to OMB for the previously approved OMB control number to account for the changes proposed in this rule. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. *Report for quarterly payment under § 24.23(b)(4)(ii):* Estimated annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: *176* hours. Estimated average annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper: *8* hours. Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: *22.* Estimated annual frequency of responses: *4.* *Report for refund of overpayment under § 24.23(b)(4)(iii):* Estimated annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: *5* hours. Estimated average annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper: *1* hour. Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: *5* . Estimated annual frequency of responses: *2* . *Report by operators including the list of carriers under § 128.11(b):* Estimated annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: *6* hours. Estimated average annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper: *2* hours. Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: *3* . Estimated annual frequency of responses: *4* . Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy should also be sent to the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229. Comments should be submitted within the time frame that comments are due regarding the substance of the proposal. Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operations, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Signing Authority This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain CBP revenue functions. List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 24 Accounting, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Interest, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Taxes, User fees, Wages. 19 CFR Part 113 Air carriers, Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Freight, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds. 19 CFR Part 128 Administrative practice and procedure, Carriers, Couriers, Customs duties and inspection, Entry, Express consignments, Freight, Imports, Informal entry procedures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 24, 113, and 128 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR parts 24, 113, and 128), are proposed to be amended as set forth below. PART 24—CUSTOMS FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a-58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, 1520, 1624; 26 U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.* ). Section 24.17 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 261, 267, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1456, 1524, 1557, 1562; 46 U.S.C. 2110, 2111, 2112; Section 24.23 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 3332; 2. In § 24.17: a. The section heading is revised to read as set forth below; b. Paragraphs

(a)through

(d)are amended by removing the words “Customs employee” where they appear and adding in each place the term “CBP employee; and c. Paragraphs (a)(12) and (a)(13) are removed and paragraph (a)(14) is redesignated as paragraph (a)(12). § 24.17 Reimbursable services of CBP employees. 3. In § 24.23: a. Paragraph

(a)is amended by removing the word “Customs” each place that it appears and adding the term “CBP”; b. Paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and paragraph (b)(2) are revised; c. New paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) are added; d. The introductory text of paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing the reference “(b)(2)(i)” and adding, in its place, the reference “(b)(2)”; e. Paragraph (c)(2)(i) is amended by removing the reference “(b)(2)(i)” and adding, in its place, the reference “(b)(2)”; f. The first sentence of paragraph (c)(3) is amended by removing the reference “(b)(2)(i)” and adding, in its place, the reference “(b)(2)”; and g. Paragraph (c)(5) is amended by removing the reference “(b)(2)(i)” and adding, in its place, the reference “(b)(2)”. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 24.23 Fees for processing merchandise.

(b)*Fees*

(1)*Formal entry or release*

(i)*Ad valorem fee*

(A)*General.* Except as provided in paragraph

(c)of this section, merchandise that is formally entered or released is subject to the payment to CBP of an *ad valorem* fee of 0.21 percent. The 0.21 *ad valorem* fee is due and payable to CBP by the importer of record of the merchandise at the time of presentation of the entry summary and is based on the value of the merchandise as determined under 19 U.S.C. 1401a. In the case of an express consignment carrier facility or centralized hub facility, merchandise that is formally entered is subject to a $1.00 per individual air waybill or bill of lading fee and, if applicable, to the 0.21 percent *ad valorem* fee which must be paid by the carrier as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.

(2)*Informal entry or release.* Except in the case of merchandise covered by paragraph (b)(3) or paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in paragraph

(c)of this section, merchandise that is informally entered or released is subject to the payment to CBP of a fee of:

(i)$2 if the entry or release is automated and not prepared by CBP personnel;

(ii)$6 if the entry or release is manual and not prepared by CBP personnel; or

(iii)$9 if the entry or release, whether automated or manual, is prepared by CBP personnel.

(3)*Small airport or other facility.* With respect to the processing of letters, documents, records, shipments, merchandise, or any other item that is valued at $2,000 or less, or any higher amount prescribed for purposes of informal entry in § 143.21 of this chapter, a small airport or other facility must pay to CBP an amount equal to the reimbursement (including overtime) which the facility is required to make during the fiscal year under § 24.17.

(4)*Express consignment carrier and centralized hub facilities.* Each carrier using an express consignment carrier facility or a centralized hub facility must pay to CBP a fee in the amount of $1.00 per individual air waybill or individual bill of lading and, if merchandise is formally entered, the *ad valorem* fee specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if applicable. An individual air waybill or individual bill of lading is the individual document issued by the carrier for transporting and/or tracking an individual item, letter, package, envelope, record, document, or shipment. An individual air waybill is the bill at the lowest level, and is not a master bill or other consolidated document. An individual air waybill or bill of lading is a bill representing an individual shipment that has its own unique bill number and tracking number, where the shipment is assigned to a single ultimate consignee, and no lower bill unit exists. Payment must be made to CBP on a quarterly basis and must cover the individual fees for all subject transactions that occurred during a calendar quarter. The following additional requirements and conditions apply to each quarterly payment made under this section:

(i)The quarterly payment must conform to the requirements of § 24.1, must be mailed to Customs and Border Protection, Revenue Division/Attention: Reimbursables, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278, and must be received by CBP no later than the last day of the month that follows the close of the calendar quarter to which the payment relates.

(ii)The following information must be included with the quarterly payment:

(A)The identity of the calendar quarter to which the payment relates;

(B)The identity of the facility for which the payment is made and the port code that applies to that location and, if the payment covers multiple facilities, the identity of each facility and its port code and the portion of the payment that pertains to each port code; and

(C)The total number of individual air waybills and individual bills of lading covered by the payment, and a breakdown of that total for each facility covered by the payment according to the number covered by formal entry procedures, the number covered by informal entry procedures specified in §§ 128.24(e) and 143.23(j) of this chapter, and the number covered by other informal entry procedures.

(iii)Overpayments or underpayments may be accounted for by an explanation in, and adjustment of, the next due quarterly payment to CBP. In the case of an overpayment or underpayment that is not accounted for by an adjustment of the next due quarterly payment to CBP:

(A)In the case of an overpayment, the carrier may request a refund by writing to Customs and Border Protection, Revenue Division/Attention: Reimbursables, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278. The refund request must specify the grounds for the refund and must be received by CBP within one year of the date the fee for which the refund is sought was paid to CBP; and

(B)In the case of an underpayment, interest will accrue on the amount not paid from the date payment was initially due to the date that payment to CBP is made.

(iv)The underpayment or failure of a carrier using an express consignment carrier facility or a centralized hub facility to pay all applicable fees owed to CBP pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section may result in the assessment of penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 and any other action authorized by law. PART 113—CUSTOMS BONDS 4. The authority citation for part 113 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624. 5. In § 113.64, paragraph

(a)is amended by adding a new sentence at the end to read as follows: § 113.64 International carrier bond conditions.

(a)* * * If the principal (carrier) fails to pay the fees for processing letters, documents, records, shipments, merchandise, or other items on or before the last day of the month that follows the close of the calendar quarter to which the processing fees relate pursuant to § 24.23(b)(4) of this chapter, the obligors (principal and surety, jointly and severally) agree to pay liquidated damages equal to two times the processing fees not timely paid to CBP as prescribed by regulation. PART 128—EXPRESS CONSIGNMENTS 6. The authority citation for part 128 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 19 U.S.C. 58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1321, 1484, 1498, 1551, 1555, 1556, 1565, 1624. 7. In § 128.11, paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(7)(iv) and (b)(7)(v) are revised to read as follows: § 128.11 Express consignment carrier application process.

(b)* * *

(2)A statement of the general character of the express consignment operations that includes, in the case of an express consignment carrier facility, a list of carriers that intend to use the facility.

(7)* * *

(iv)If the entity is an express consignment carrier facility, provide to Customs and Border Protection, Revenue Division/Attention: Reimbursables, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite 100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278, at the beginning of each calendar quarter, a list of all carriers currently using the facility and notify that office whenever a new carrier begins to use the facility or whenever a carrier ceases to use the facility.

(v)If the entity is a hub facility or an express consignment carrier, timely pay all applicable processing fees prescribed in § 24.23 of this chapter. Deborah J. Spero, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Approved: July 24, 2006. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. [FR Doc. E6-12067 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 29 CFR Part 2400 Regulations Implementing the Privacy Act of 1974 AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is proposing to amend its regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. The Privacy Act has been amended multiple times since OSHRC first promulgated its regulations in 1979. The proposed amendments to OSHRC's regulations at 29 CFR part 2400 will assist the agency in complying with the requirements of the Privacy Act. DATES: Comments must be received by OSHRC on or before August 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: regsdocket@oshrc.gov.* Include “PRIVACY ACT PROPOSED RULEMAKING” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*

(202)606-5417. • *Mail:* One Lafayette Centre, 1120-20th Street, NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Same as mailing address. *Instructions:* All submissions must include your name, return address and e-mail address, if applicable. Please clearly label submissions as “PRIVACY ACT PROPOSED RULEMAKING.” If you submit comments by e-mail, you will receive an automatic confirmation e-mail from the system indicating that we have received your submission. If, in response to your comment submitted via e-mail, you do not receive a confirmation e-mail within five working days, contact us directly at

(202)606-5410. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Bailey, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the General Counsel, via telephone at

(202)606-5410, or via e-mail at *rbailey@oshrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHRC's regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974 were first promulgated on January 19, 1979, 44 FR 3968. These regulations have not been revised, except for changes made to the office address referenced in §§ 2400.6 and 2400.7, 58 FR 26065, April 30, 1993. Since 1979, however, the Privacy Act has been amended on numerous occasions. As explained below, these statutory changes, along with intervening case law, compel OSHRC to propose various amendments to its regulations. Because OSHRC proposes extensive revisions to its existing regulations implementing the Privacy Act, OSHRC has reproduced, for the convenience of the reader, the revised regulations to 29 CFR part 2400 in their entirety in its proposed rulemaking. The specific amendments that OSHRC proposes include the following changes which are discussed in regulatory sequence. OSHRC proposes amending its authority citation to exclude all references to popular names and statutes at large. The Office of the Federal Register has expressed a preference for citing only to the United States Code when referencing a Federal statute. In § 2400.1 (Purpose and scope), OSHRC proposes making several changes to clarify what 29 CFR part 2400 covers. In accordance with the amendments to the Privacy Act contained in section 2(b), Public Law 97-365 (5 U.S.C. 552a(m)(2)), OSHRC proposes amending § 2400.1 to reflect that part 2400 no longer covers systems of records “that are disclosed to consumer reporting agencies under [section] 3711(e) of title 31, United States Code.” Additionally, OSHRC proposes amending § 2400.1 to reflect that part 2400 applies only to “records that are maintained by [OSHRC].” Presently, § 2400.1 states that OSHRC's Privacy Act regulations “are applicable only to such items of information as relate to the agency or are within its custody.” However, the term “record” is defined in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4) while the term “items of information” is not. Therefore, amending § 2400.1 to substitute “record” for “items of information” would more appropriately limit the purpose and scope of the regulations in accordance with the statute. OSHRC also proposes deleting the last sentence of § 2400.1, which states “[t]his part is intended to protect individual privacy, and affects all personal information collection and usage activity of the agency,” because it is overly broad. Based on these proposed amendments, new § 2400.1 would read as follows: The purpose of the provisions of this part is to provide procedures to implement the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). This part is applicable only to records that are maintained by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC or the Commission), which includes all systems of records operated on behalf of OSHRC, pursuant to a contract, to accomplish an agency function, except for records that are disclosed to consumer reporting agencies under section 3711(e) of title 31, United States Code. This part is not applicable to the rights of parties appearing in adversary proceedings before the Commission to obtain discovery from an adverse party. Such matters are governed by the Commission's Rules of Procedure, which are published at 29 CFR 2200.1 *et seq.* Revising § 2400.1 in this manner would incorporate a statutory change to the Privacy Act, as well as clarify the proper scope of the agency's regulations under this Part. In § 2400.2 (Description of agency), OSHRC proposes adding a sentence to the end of the section that provides additional details about the designation of one of the Commissioners as the Chairman and his responsibilities for the administrative operations of the Commission, consistent with section 12(e) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 661(e). OSHRC also proposes a simple change in nomenclature by deleting “Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission” and replacing it with “The Commission.” The agency's full name would first be noted in revised § 2400.1 based on the amendments to that section discussed above. OSHRC proposes amending several items in § 2400.3 (Delegation of authority). In paragraph

(a)of § 2400.3, OSHRC proposes revised language providing that “[t]he Chairman shall designate an OSHRC employee as the Privacy Officer, and shall delegate to the Privacy Officer the authority to insure agency-wide compliance with this part.” In the current version of paragraph (a), this authority is delegated to the Executive Director. In recent years, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has issued various guidance memoranda regarding the responsibilities of executive departments and agencies on privacy matters, including Safeguarding Personally Identifiable Information, OMB-06-15 (May 22, 2006); Designation of Senior Agency Officials for Privacy, OMB Memorandum M-05-08 (Feb. 11, 2005); and OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Provision of the E-Government Act of 2002, OMB Memorandum M-03-22 (Sept. 30, 2003). By creating the position of Privacy Officer and providing this individual with the authority to handle Privacy Act matters, OSHRC would be better able to respond to future changes in requirements and subsequent guidance in the privacy arena. In paragraph

(b)of § 2400.3, OSHRC proposes replacing the term “[c]ustodians” with the more specific term “[c]ustodians of the systems of records” in order to better define those persons covered by paragraph (b). In accordance with the changes proposed to § 2400.3(a), OSHRC would also replace the term “Executive Director” with “Privacy Officer.” OSHRC further proposes to break out existing paragraph

(b)into paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) and to add a new paragraph (b)(3) in order to highlight the various duties of the custodians of the systems of records. Specifically, OSHRC proposes to reformat paragraph

(b)by turning the first and second sentences of the current paragraph

(b)into new paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), respectively. OSHRC proposes making several grammatical changes in new paragraph (b)(1) by transforming the words “adherence,” “collection,” “use,” and “disclosure” into present participles. OSHRC also proposes to replace

(1)the word “information” and the phrase “personal information” with the word “records,” and

(2)the phrase “personal records systems” with the phrase “systems of records.” Because the terms “record” and “system of records” are defined in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4) and (5), use of these terms would better delineate the scope of revised paragraph (b). OSHRC then proposes adding a new paragraph (b)(3), which would make the custodians of the systems of records responsible for maintaining an accurate accounting of each disclosure in conformance with § 2400.4(d) and its statutory counterpart in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(c). Although § 2400.4(d) presently requires that “[a]n accurate accounting of each disclosure” be maintained, the current regulations do not specify who is responsible for complying with this provision. OSHRC believes, however, that custodians of the systems of records are best suited to maintain an accounting of each disclosure because they have the most interaction with the systems of records and are usually involved in processing the requests for records. With regard to § 2400.4 (Collection and disclosure of personal information), OSHRC proposes making several structural and substantive changes, as well as some minor changes in wording. In paragraph (a)(1)(i) of § 2400.4, OSHRC proposes adding the phrase “in its records” after “[s]olicit, collect and maintain” to clarify that OSHRC's responsibilities under this provision only extend to information that is maintained in a record. OSHRC also proposes adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(ii) that lists the responsibilities set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5), which requires each agency to— Maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination. While this provision has always been in the Privacy Act, it was never incorporated into OSHRC's regulations. With the addition of new paragraph (a)(1)(ii), § 2400.4(a)(1) would better reflect OSHRC's responsibilities under the Privacy Act. OSHRC then proposes to renumber current paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and

(iii)as new paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv). In order to better track the statutory language of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2), OSHRC further proposes adding the phrase “under Federal programs” after “benefits or privileges” in the newly renumbered paragraph (a)(1)(iii). Finally, OSHRC proposes a minor change by deleting “the” before “OSHRC” in new paragraph (a)(1)(iv). OSHRC proposes no changes to paragraph (a)(2), however, in paragraph (a)(3) of § 2400.4, OSHRC proposes replacing the word “information” with “record” because the term “record” is defined in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4) while the term “information” is not. Amending paragraph (a)(3) in this manner would better define this paragraph's scope. OSHRC also proposes adding the phrase “or maintenance of the record” after “collection” to clarify that all of the requirements and exceptions in the paragraph apply to both the collection and maintenance of records. Finally, OSHRC proposes amending paragraph (a)(3) to include language excluding records that are “pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity” in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7). We propose no changes to § 2400.4(a)(4). OSHRC proposes making structural and substantive changes to paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of § 2400.4. Specifically, OSHRC proposes amending paragraph (b)(1) to incorporate the opening statutory language contained in 5 U.S.C. 552a(b). The revised paragraph (b)(1) would thus read: OSHRC shall not disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains. The current regulation at § 2400.4(b)(1) regarding disclosures-which, in part, prevents OSHRC from disseminating records “unless reasonable efforts have been made to assure that the information is accurate, complete, timely and relevant”—could be construed as applying to Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)requests. Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(6), however, agency responses to FOIA requests are specifically exempted from the Privacy Act requirement that agencies must make reasonable efforts to ensure, when disclosing records about an individual to any person, that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant. This exemption makes sense because the purpose of a FOIA request may be, for example, to gather information that reflects an agency's propensity for maintaining inaccurate records. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to require that such records requested under the FOIA be examined in this manner under the Privacy Act. Thus, in order to eliminate such an interpretation, OSHRC proposes amending paragraph (b)(1) in the aforementioned manner, amending paragraph (b)(2) to list exceptions to revised paragraph (b)(1), and adding new paragraph (b)(5) which would define when records should be “accurate, complete, timely and relevant.” As to paragraph (b)(2) of § 2400.4, OSHRC proposes the following changes. First, in order to reflect that revised paragraph (b)(2) lists exceptions to the rule set forth in revised paragraph (b)(1), OSHRC proposes revising the opening clause to read, “ *Exceptions:* A record may be disseminated without satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section if disclosure is made: * * *” Second, OSHRC proposes replacing the word “information” with “record” in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iv), because the term “record” is defined in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4), while the term “information” is not. Third, in paragraph (b)(2)(iv), OSHRC proposes adding the words “OSHRC with” between “provided” and “adequate advance written assurance” in order to clarify that notice must be provided to OSHRC. In that paragraph, OSHRC also proposes replacing the phrase “individually identifiable” with “personally identifiable” because this is a term of art used in the privacy field. Fourth, OSHRC proposes a change in nomenclature by spelling out “United States” in paragraph (b)(2)(v) and deleting “the” before “OSHRC” in paragraph (b)(2)(viii). Fifth, in accordance with the amendments to the Privacy Act contained in section 107(g)(1), Public Law 98-497 (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(6)), OSHRC proposes modifying, in paragraph (b)(2)(vi), “National Archives of the United States” to read “National Archives and Records Administration,” and “Administrator of General Services” to read “Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist.” Sixth, OSHRC proposes modifying, in paragraph (b)(2)(viii), “Federal agency” to read “another agency.” This revision better tracks the statutory language at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7) and makes clear that the records can be disclosed to federal, state, or local agencies. In this regard, OMB states in its guidelines, 40 FR 28948, 28955, July 9, 1975, that in addition to providing for disclosures to federal law enforcement agencies, section 552a(b)(7) allows an agency, “upon receipt of a written request, [to] disclose a record to another agency or unit of State or local government for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity.” Seventh, in order to better track the language of 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(9), OSHRC proposes modifying paragraph (b)(2)(ix) of § 2400.4 to read, “To either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, or any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee.” Eighth, in accordance with the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-271, 118 Stat. 811, OSHRC proposes modifying, in paragraph (b)(2)(x), “General Accounting Office” to read “Government Accountability Office.” Finally, OSHRC proposes adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(xii) which, in accordance with the amendments to the Privacy Act contained in section 2(a), Public Law 97-365 (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)), would permit disclosures “[t]o a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of title 31, United States Code.” OSHRC further proposes some minor changes, such as capitalizing “Service” in paragraph (b)(3) and revising “§ 2400.4(b)(3) above” to read “paragraph (b)(3) of this section” in paragraph (b)(4). In paragraph (b)(3), OSHRC also proposes changing “The Personnel Office” to “OSHRC's Office of Administration” based on the agency's recent reorganization. OSHRC next proposes adding new paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to § 2400.4, which would essentially incorporate the statutory language of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(6) and (d)(5), respectively. Paragraph (b)(5) would read: *Disclosures to third parties.* OSHRC shall not disseminate any record about an individual to any person other than an agency unless the record is disseminated pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, or reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the record is accurate, complete, timely and relevant. Paragraph (b)(6) would read: *Anticipated legal action.* Nothing in this section shall allow an individual access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding. OSHRC believes that these provisions should be added to § 2400.4 in order to track the statute and make the regulations comprehensive. Additionally, OSHRC proposes moving current § 2400.4(c) and re-designating it as new § 2400.5(c). Current section 2400.4(c), which pertains to notifying certain persons and agencies about corrections made to a record, is a better fit for new § 2400.5(c), which pertains to “notification of amendment.” Proposed modifications to the language in the re-designated § 2400.5(c) are discussed below in that section. In response to the change above, OSHRC proposes re-designating paragraph

(d)of § 2400.4, which sets forth the procedures for maintaining an accounting of disclosures, as new paragraph

(c)of § 2400.4. OSHRC proposes streamlining the language of new paragraph (c)(1). Rather than spelling out that the accounting requirements do not pertain to instances “in which disclosure is made to OSHRC employees in the performance of their duties or is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), in conformance with section 552a(c) of the Privacy Act,” OSHRC proposes simply stating that “any disclosure made pursuant to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section” is excepted. Also, OSHRC proposes inserting the phrase “OSHRC shall maintain” at the beginning of paragraph (c)(1) to emphasize that it is, in fact, OSHRC's responsibility to maintain an accurate accounting of certain disclosures. OSHRC further proposes adding a new paragraph (c)(2) that lists the information required, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(1), for a proper accounting of each disclosure. New paragraph (c)(2) would read as follows: When an accounting is required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the following information shall be recorded: The date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another agency, and the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made. OSHRC proposes renumbering current paragraph (d)(2) as new paragraph (c)(3), and modifying the language “for at least five

(5)years or the life of the record” to read “for at least five

(5)years after disclosure or for the life of the record” in order to clearly define the length of time that an accounting must be maintained. Finally, OSHRC proposes renumbering current paragraph (d)(3) as new paragraph (c)(4), adding a cross-reference to “§ 2400.6 for suggested form of request,” and deleting the word “provision” because it adds nothing to the sentence. With regard to § 2400.5 (Notification), OSHRC proposes making various changes in substance and nomenclature. In the opening sentence of paragraph

(a)of § 2400.5, OSHRC proposes modifying the phrase “personal records systems” to read “systems of records” because only the latter phrase is defined in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(5). In paragraph (a)(2) of § 2400.5, OSHRC proposes deleting the word “personal” because the definitions of “record” and “system of records” in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4) and (5), respectively, already reflect that personal identifiable information is at issue. In accordance with the amendments to the Privacy Act contained in section 201(a), Public Law 97-375 (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)), OSHRC also proposes deleting the word “annually” from paragraph (a)(2) and adding the phrase “[u]pon establishing or revising a system of records.” Additionally, OSHRC proposes modifying paragraph (a)(2) to reflect the data elements that are required by the Office of the Federal Register for Privacy Act notices. These fields include:

(i)System name and location;

(ii)security classification;

(iii)categories of individuals covered by the system;

(iv)categories of records in the system;

(v)authority for maintenance of the system;

(vi)purpose(s) of the system;

(vii)routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purpose(s) of such uses;

(viii)disclosures to consumer reporting agencies;

(ix)policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system;

(x)system manager(s) and address;

(xi)procedures by which an individual can be informed whether a system contains a record pertaining to himself, gain access to such record, and contest the content, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, relevance, and necessity for retention of the record;

(xii)record source categories; and

(xiii)exemptions claimed for the system. Finally, in the opening sentence of paragraph (a)(2) of § 2400.5, OSHRC proposes minor grammatical changes, such as inserting “the” before the words “existence” and “systems.” In accordance with the amendments to the Privacy Act contained in section 3(b), Public Law 100-503 (5 U.S.C. 552a(r)), OSHRC proposes adding a new paragraph (a)(3) to § 2400.5 that sets forth the reporting requirements for system-of-records notices. New paragraph (a)(3) would read as follows: OSHRC shall submit a report, in accordance with guidelines provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in order to give advance notice to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and OMB of any proposal to establish a new system of records or to significantly change an existing system of records. OSHRC believes it is necessary to add new paragraph (a)(3) to § 2400.5 in order to provide a comprehensive explanation of the notification requirements. In paragraph

(b)of § 2400.5, OSHRC proposes replacing the phrase “personal information” with “record pertaining to the individual” because the term “record” is defined in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4), while the term “information” is not. OSHRC also proposes substantial changes to paragraph

(c)of § 2400.5. Presently, paragraph

(c)states as follows: “ *Notification of amendment* . (See § 2400.7 relating to amendment of records upon request.)” OSHRC proposes deleting this language, and, as discussed earlier, inserting the text of current § 2400.4(c), which pertains to notifying certain persons and agencies about corrections made to a record, and designating it as new paragraph (c)(1) in § 2400.5. OSHRC would thus modify the text to read as follows: OSHRC shall inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute made by OSHRC to any record that has been disclosed to the person or agency, if the correction or notation was made pursuant to § 2400.8, and an accounting of the disclosure was made pursuant to § 2400.4(c). The current version of this paragraph states that its requirements apply where a “personal record has been or is to be disclosed.” However, the phrase “is to be disclosed” is not included in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4), the regulation's statutory counterpart. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, it would be difficult to notify a person or an agency of a correction if the record has not yet been disclosed to that person or agency. The remaining changes to new paragraph (c)(1), shown above, are based on the statutory text at section 552a(c)(4). OSHRC proposes adding a new paragraph (c)(2) to § 2400.5 setting forth the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(4), which explains how agencies are to treat disputed portions of the record. New paragraph (c)(2) would read as follows: In any disclosure to a person or other agency containing information about which the individual has filed a statement of disagreement and occurring after the statement was filed, OSHRC shall clearly note any portion of the record which is disputed and provide copies of the statement and, if OSHRC deems appropriate, copies of a concise statement of OSHRC's reasons for not making the requested amendments. OSHRC believes that adding this statutory requirement to § 2400.5 would help ensure that the rights of those covered by the Privacy Act are preserved. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), OSHRC proposes amending paragraph

(d)of § 2400.5 to allow interested persons to “submit written data, views, or arguments to OSHRC” after a system-of-records notice has been published in the **Federal Register** . OSHRC also proposes adding the word “routine” before “use,” and replacing “personal information” with “a system of records” because, under section 552a(e)(11), notification is required only for new and revised routine uses of systems of records. OSHRC proposes no changes to paragraph

(e)of § 2400.5. With regard to § 2400.6 (Procedures for requesting records), OSHRC proposes various substantive and structural changes, as well some changes in nomenclature. Throughout § 2400.6, OSHRC proposes replacing “personal information” with “record” because the term “record” is defined in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4) and the term “information” is not. OSHRC also proposes a change in nomenclature by replacing “Executive Director,” “responsible official,” and “disclosure officer” with “Privacy Officer” in accordance with the proposed changes to § 2400.3(a). In the opening sentence of § 2400.6, OSHRC proposes a change in wording by replacing the word “have” with “gain.” OSHRC also proposes deleting the phrase “within a comprehensive format” as unnecessary. In paragraph (a)(1) of § 2400.6, OSHRC proposes deleting the last sentence which says the following: Access to OSHRC records maintained in National Archives and Records Service Centers may be obtained in accordance with the regulations issued by the General Services Administration. According to section 107(g)(2), Public Law 98-497 (5 U.S.C. 552a(l)(1)), the records that OSHRC sends to the Federal processing center are still considered to be under OSHRC's control. Thus, disclosure of such records must be in accordance with OSHRC's regulations. OSHRC also proposes amending the agency's mailing address to include the last four digits of the ZIP code and to spell out “Ninth Floor.” OSHRC proposes deleting the last sentence in paragraph (a)(2) of § 2400.6, which reads, “Upon request, OSHRC also shall disclose to the individual an accounting of any disclosures made from the individual's records.” This sentence is redundant because new § 2400.4(c)(4) (current § 2400.4(d)(3)) already covers an individual's request for an accounting. In paragraph (a)(3) of § 2400.6, OSHRC proposes revising the Privacy Officer's period for response to read “10 working days” rather than “10 days,” because 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2)(A) states that Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded from the 10-day requirement. Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of § 2400.6 would remain unchanged. However, OSHRC proposes amending paragraph (b)(3) of § 2400.6 to reflect that a declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746 may serve as an alternative to a notarized statement, in accordance with section 1(a), Public Law 94-550 (28 U.S.C. 1746) and *Summers* v. *United States Dep't of Justice* , 999 F.2d 570, 573 (D.C. Cir. 1993). While paragraph

(c)on verification of guardianship remains unchanged, OSHRC proposes modifying paragraph

(d)of § 2400.6 to indicate that the authorization form discussed in that paragraph must be provided by OSHRC. Because the form is intended, in part, to protect OSHRC from liability that may arise when records are disseminated to a third party accompanying the individual whose records are being accessed, OSHRC must make certain that the form is legally adequate. OSHRC also proposes deleting current paragraph

(e)of § 2400.6, which sets forth special rules for requesting medical records, and adding a new section § 2400.7 that provides a more legally sound procedure for requesting such records. OSHRC also proposes re-designating current paragraph

(f)as new paragraph (e). OSHRC proposes re-designating paragraph

(g)of § 2400.6 as new paragraph

(f)and amending its language to require that the Privacy Officer, upon denying an individual's request for personal records, notify the individual of his or her right to an administrative appeal. The paragraph presently requires that the requester be advised of his right to judicial review in a district court of the United States. However, the administrative appeal is an equally important aspect of the review process and, therefore, should be included in the Privacy Officer's statement. OSHRC also proposes deleting the phrase “or other appropriate official,” thereby requiring that the Privacy Officer sign any reply denying an individual's written request to review a record. Placing clear limits on who has authority to deny such a request is necessary to maintain the integrity of the administrative appeal process. As discussed above, OSHRC proposes creating a new § 2400.7 by carving out current paragraph

(e)of § 2400.6 and revising it to comport with new case law regarding special procedures for medical records. Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(3), OSHRC must— Establish procedures for the disclosure to an individual upon his request of his record or information pertaining to him, including special procedure, if deemed necessary, for the disclosure to an individual of medical records, including psychological records, pertaining to him[.] Current paragraph

(e)of § 2400.6 states the following: Medical records shall be disclosed to the requester to whom they pertain unless the Executive Director, in consultation with a medical doctor named by the requesting individual, determines that access to such record could have an adverse effect upon such individual. In such a case, the Executive Director shall transmit such information to the named medical doctor. However, in light of *Benavides* v. *United States Bureau of Prisons* , 995 F.2d 269 (D.C. Cir. 1993), current paragraph

(e)may no longer be valid. In Benavides, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that, while an agency is authorized to devise a “special” methodology for disclosing medical records under section 552a(f)(3), the devised methodology must lead to disclosure of the medical records to the requesting individual. *Id.* at 272. Thus, the court held that a regulation which expressly contemplates that the requesting individual may never see certain medical records is not a permissible special procedure. *Id.* The court, however, rejected the argument that the Privacy Act requires direct disclosure of medical records to the requesting individual. *Id.* at 273. Recognizing the “potential harm that could result from unfettered access to medical and psychological records,” the court provided that an agency should have the freedom to craft special procedures to limit such harm, as long as the agency guarantees “the ultimate disclosure of the medical records to the requesting individual.” *Id.* Therefore, new § 2400.7 would address the concerns expressed in Benavides by setting forth a procedure that guarantees “the ultimate disclosure of medical records to the requesting individual,” but still requires the intervention of a physician in order “to limit the potential harm.” *Id.* In part, OSHRC's proposed procedures under this section are based on the procedures utilized by the Central Intelligence Agency, 32 CFR 1901.31. OSHRC next proposes re-designating current § 2400.7 (Procedures for requesting amendment) as new § 2400.8. Throughout new § 2400.8, OSHRC would replace “Executive Director” with “Privacy Officer” in accordance with the proposed amendments to § 2400.3(a). OSHRC then proposes revising paragraph (b)(4) to reflect that the Privacy Officer will “[n]otify the requester of a determination not to amend the record, of the reasons for the refusal, and of the requester's right to appeal in accordance with [new] § 2400.9.” Inexplicably, the current version of paragraph (b)(4) does not require OSHRC to explain why a person's request for amendment is being denied. OSHRC also proposes severing paragraphs

(c)and

(d)of current § 2400.7 and renumbering them to create a new § 2400.9 pertaining to appeal procedures. Creating new § 2400.9 by separating the appeal procedures from current § 2400.7, which pertains to “procedures for requesting amendment,” is necessary because individuals should be permitted to appeal the agency's denial of inspection and copy requests, not just the denial of amendment requests. In new § 2400.9 (current § 2400.7(c) and (d)), OSHRC proposes changing “Executive Director” to “Privacy Officer.” OSHRC also proposes the following changes. New paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of proposed § 2400.9 would coincide with current § 2400.7(c)(1) and (c)(2), new paragraph

(b)would coincide with current § 2400.7(c)(3), new paragraph

(c)would coincide with current § 2400.7(c)(4), and new paragraph

(d)would coincide with current § 2400.7(d). In new paragraph (a)(1) (current § 2400.7(c)(1)), OSHRC proposes amending the last four digits of the ZIP code in its mailing address, spelling out “Ninth Floor,” and adding “Attn: Privacy Appeal” as the second line in the address. In new paragraph

(b)of § 2400.9 (current § 2400.7(c)(3)), OSHRC proposes the following:

(1)Adding the word “working” after the first mention of “30” because 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(3) states that Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays are excluded from the 30-day requirement;

(2)replacing the word “determination” with “decision” in order to make new paragraph

(b)consistent with paragraph

(c)(current § 2400.7(c)(4)); and

(3)for the sake of readability, modifying “not complete, accurate, relevant, or timely,” to read “incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant, or untimely.” In new paragraph

(c)(current § 2400.7(c)(4)), OSHRC proposes to title the paragraph as “Decision requirements” and to add the phrase “of the United States” after “district court.” Finally, in new paragraph

(d)(current § 2400.7(d)), OSHRC proposes adding “then” after “the requester,” and deleting the word “personal” because the definition of “record” in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(4) already reflects that personal identifiable information is at issue. OSHRC proposes deleting current § 2400.7(e). This paragraph states that the Executive Director “is available to provide an individual with assistance in exercising rights pursuant to this part.” OSHRC believes that this language creates no affirmative duty and is therefore unnecessary. Moreover, OSHRC believes that its proposed regulations already adequately ensure that an individual requesting records or amendment to records would be provided with the information necessary to exercise his or her rights. OSHRC proposes re-designating current § 2400.8 (Schedule of fees) as new § 2400.10. OSHRC would amend the schedule of fees to reflect the change in costs since the original promulgation of the current regulations in 1979. Rather than specifying a specific copying fee, OSHRC would incorporate by reference Appendix A to 29 CFR Part 2201—Schedule of Fees in the agency's proposed rulemaking implementing the FOIA published at 71 FR 41384, July 21, 2006. OSHRC proposes this revision for administrative ease and to ensure that the fees charged for FOIA and Privacy Act requests are consistent. Lastly, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(5), OSHRC would amend paragraph

(c)to reflect that no fee would be charged for reviewing records. OSHRC proposes deleting current § 2400.9 (Exemptions), which states that “[s]ubsections 552a(j) and

(k)of title 5 * * * empower the Chairman to exempt systems of records meeting certain criteria from various other subsections of section 552a.” Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), the head of an agency may promulgate rules, in some circumstances, to exempt various systems of records from certain Privacy Act requirements. A system of records cannot be exempted, however, unless a specific rule regarding it has been published. If ever there is a system of records that the head of the agency wants to exempt, he or she can simply publish a regulation at that time to exempt the system. Thus, deleting § 2400.9 would not in any way deprive the Chairman of this authority. Executive Order 12866 The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 12866. Paperwork Reduction Act The Commission has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , does not apply because these rules do not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of OMB. Executive Order 13132 The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13132. However, as independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with this executive order, OSHRC has examined the proposed regulatory action in light of its requirements. This proposed regulatory action does not have Federalism implications. Moreover, the action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Commission has determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that these rules, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Statement and Analysis has not been prepared. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 *et seq.* Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States based enterprises to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2400 Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records, Government employees, Privacy. Signed at Washington, DC, on July 24, 2006. W. Scott Railton, Chairman. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHRC proposes that Chapter XX, Part 2400 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, be revised as follows: PART 2400—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE PRIVACY ACT Sec. 2400.1 Purpose and scope. 2400.2 Description of agency. 2400.3 Delegation of authority. 2400.4 Collection and disclosure of personal information. 2400.5 Notification. 2400.6 Procedures for requesting records. 2400.7 Special procedures for requesting medical records. 2400.8 Procedures for requesting amendment. 2400.9 Procedures for appealing. 2400.10 Schedule of fees. Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(f); 5 U.S.C. 553. § 2400.1 Purpose and scope. The purpose of the provisions of this part is to provide procedures to implement the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). This part is applicable only to records that are maintained by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC or the Commission), which includes all systems of records operated on behalf of OSHRC, pursuant to a contract, to accomplish an agency function, except for records that are disclosed to consumer reporting agencies under section 3711(e) of title 31, United States Code. This part is not applicable to the rights of parties appearing in adversary proceedings before the Commission to obtain discovery from an adverse party. Such matters are governed by the Commission's Rules of Procedure, which are published at 29 CFR 2200.1 *et seq.* § 2400.2 Description of agency. The Commission adjudicates contested enforcement actions under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651-677). Decisions of the Commission on such actions are issued only after the parties to the case are afforded an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code. All such hearings are conducted by an OSHRC Administrative Law Judge at a place convenient to the parties and are open to the public. Each Commission member has the authority to direct that a decision of a Judge be reviewed by the full Commission before becoming a final order. The President designates one of the Commissioners as Chairman, who is responsible on behalf of the Commission for the administrative operations of the Commission. § 2400.3 Delegation of authority.

(a)The Chairman shall designate an OSHRC employee as the Privacy Officer, and shall delegate to the Privacy Officer the authority to insure agency-wide compliance with this part.

(b)Custodians of the systems of records are responsible for the following:

(1)Adhering to this part within their respective units and, in particular, collecting, using and disclosing records, and affording individuals the right to inspect, obtain copies of and correct records concerning them;

(2)Reporting the existence of systems of records, changes to the contents of those systems and changes of routine use to the Privacy Officer, and also establishing the relevancy of records within those systems; and

(3)Maintaining an accurate accounting of each disclosure in conformance with § 2400.4(c) of this part. § 2400.4 Collection and disclosure of personal information.

(a)The following rules govern the collection of personal information throughout OSHRC operations:

(1)OSHRC shall:

(i)Solicit, collect and maintain in its records only such personal information as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose required by statute or executive order;

(ii)Maintain all records which are used by OSHRC in making any determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to ensure fairness to the individual in the determination;

(iii)Collect information, to the greatest extent practicable, directly from the subject individual when such information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits or privileges under Federal programs; and

(iv)Inform any individual requested to disclose personal information whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what authority it is solicited, the principal purposes for which it is intended to be used, the routine uses which may be made of it, and any penalties or consequences known to OSHRC which shall result to the individual from such non-disclosure.

(2)OSHRC shall not discriminate against any individual who fails to provide personal information unless that information is required or necessary for the conduct of the system or program in which the individual desires to participate. See § 2400.4(a)(1)(i).

(3)No record shall be collected or maintained which describes how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless the Commission specifically determines that such information is relevant and necessary to carry out a statutory purpose of OSHRC, and the collection or maintenance of the record is expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained, or unless the record is pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.

(4)OSHRC shall not require disclosure of any individual's Social Security account number or deny a right, privilege or benefit because of the individual's refusal to disclose the number unless disclosure is required by Federal law.

(b)*Disclosures—*

(1)*Limitations* . OSHRC shall not disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.

(2)*Exceptions* . A record may be disseminated without satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section if disclosure is made:

(i)To a person pursuant to a requirement of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552);

(ii)To those officers and employees of OSHRC who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;

(iii)For a routine use as contained in the system notices published in the **Federal Register** ;

(iv)To a recipient who has provided OSHRC with adequate advance written assurance that the record shall be used solely as a statistical reporting or research record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not personally identifiable;

(v)To the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of title 13, United States Code;

(vi)To the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;

(vii)To a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual, if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;

(viii)To another agency or an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity, if such activity is authorized by law and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to OSHRC specifying the particular portion of the record desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;

(ix)To either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, or any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;

(x)To the Comptroller General or any of his authorized representatives in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office;

(xi)Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or

(xii)To a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of title 31, United States Code.

(3)*Employee credit references* . OSHRC's Office of Administration shall verify the following information provided by an employee to a credit bureau or commercial firm from which an employee is seeking credit: Length of service, job title, grade, salary, tenure of employment, and Civil Service status.

(4)*Employee job references* . Prospective employers of an OSHRC employee or a former OSHRC employee may be furnished with the information in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in addition to the date and reason for separation if applicable, upon the request of the employee or former employee.

(5)*Disclosures to third parties* . OSHRC shall not disseminate any record about an individual to any person other than an agency unless the record is disseminated pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, or reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the record is accurate, complete, timely and relevant.

(6)*Anticipated legal action* . Nothing in this section shall allow an individual access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.

(c)*Accounting of disclosures* —(1) OSHRC shall maintain an accurate accounting of each disclosure, except for any disclosure made pursuant to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section.

(2)When an accounting is required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the following information shall be recorded: The date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another agency, and the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made.

(3)The accounting shall be maintained for at least five

(5)years after disclosure or for the life of the record, whichever is longer.

(4)The accounting shall be made available to the individual named in the record upon inquiry, except for disclosures made pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(viii) of this section relating to law enforcement activities. See § 2400.6 for suggested form of request. § 2400.5 Notification.

(a)*Notification of systems* . The following procedures permit individuals to determine the types of systems of records maintained by OSHRC.

(1)Upon written request, OSHRC shall notify any individual whether a specific system named by him contains a record pertaining to him. See § 2400.6 for suggested form of request.

(2)Upon establishing or revising a system of records, OSHRC shall publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of the existence and character of the system of records. This notice shall contain the following information:

(i)System name and location;

(ii)Security classification;

(iii)Categories of individuals covered by the system;

(iv)Categories of records in the system;

(v)Authority for maintenance of the system;

(vi)Purpose(s) of the system;

(vii)Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purpose(s) of such uses;

(viii)Disclosures to consumer reporting agencies;

(ix)Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system;

(x)System manager(s) and address;

(xi)Procedures by which an individual can be informed whether a system contains a record pertaining to himself, gain access to such record, and contest the content, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, relevance and necessity for retention of the record;

(xii)Record source categories; and

(xiii)Exemptions claimed for the system.

(3)OSHRC shall submit a report, in accordance with guidelines provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in order to give advance notice to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and OMB of any proposal to establish a new system of records or to significantly change an existing system of records.

(b)*Notification of disclosure* . OSHRC shall make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual before any record pertaining to the individual is made available to any person under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record.

(c)*Notification of amendment—*

(1)OSHRC shall inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute made by OSHRC to any record that has been disclosed to the person or agency, if the correction or notation was made pursuant to § 2400.8, and an accounting of the disclosure was made pursuant to § 2400.4(c).

(2)In any disclosure to a person or other agency containing information about which the individual has filed a statement of disagreement and occurring after the statement was filed, OSHRC shall clearly note any portion of the record which is disputed and provide copies of the statement and, if OSHRC deems appropriate, copies of a concise statement of OSHRC's reasons for not making the requested amendments.

(d)*Notification of new routine use* . Any new or revised routine use of a system of records maintained by OSHRC shall be published in the **Federal Register** thirty

(30)days before such use becomes operational. Interested persons may then submit written data, views, or arguments to OSHRC.

(e)*Notification of exemptions* . OSHRC shall publish in the **Federal Register** its intent to exempt any system of records and shall specify the nature and purpose of that system. § 2400.6 Procedures for requesting records. The purpose of this section is to provide procedures by which an individual may gain access to his records.

(a)*Submission of requests for access* —(1) *Manner* . An individual seeking information regarding the contents of records systems or access to records about himself in a system of records should present a written request to that effect either in person or by mail to the Privacy Officer, OSHRC, One Lafayette Centre, 1120-20th Street, NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457.

(2)*Specification of records sought* . Requests for access to records shall describe the nature of the record sought, the approximate dates covered by the record, and the system in which the record is thought to be included as described in the “Notification” for that system as published in the **Federal Register** . The requester should also indicate whether he wishes to review the record in person or obtain a copy by mail. If the information supplied is insufficient to locate or identify the record, the requester shall be notified promptly and, if necessary, informed of additional information required.

(3)*Period for response* . Upon receipt of an inquiry the Privacy Officer shall respond promptly to the request and no later than 10 working days from receipt of such inquiry.

(b)*Verification of identity* . The following standards are applicable to any individual who requests records concerning himself:

(1)An individual seeking access to records about himself in person may establish his identity by the presentation of a single document bearing a photograph (such as a passport, employee identification card, or valid driver's license) or by the presentation of two items of identification which do not bear a photograph but do bear both a name and address (such as a valid driver's license, or credit card).

(2)An individual seeking access to records about himself by mail shall establish his identity by a signature, address, date of birth, place of birth, employee identification number, if any, and one other identifier such as a photocopy of an identifying document.

(3)An individual seeking access to records about himself by mail or in person who cannot provide the necessary documentation of identification may provide a notarized statement, or a declaration in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, swearing or affirming to his identity and to the fact that he understands the penalties for false statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001. Forms for notarized statements may be obtained on request from the Privacy Officer.

(c)*Verification of guardianship* . The parent or guardian of a minor or a person judicially determined to be incompetent and seeking to act on behalf of such minor or incompetent shall, in addition to establishing his own identity, establish the identity of the minor or other person he represents as required in paragraph

(b)of this section and establish his own parentage or guardianship of the subject of the record by furnishing either a copy of a birth certificate showing parentage or a court order establishing the guardianship.

(d)*Accompanying persons* . An individual seeking to review records about himself may be accompanied by another individual of his own choosing. Both the individual seeking access and the individual accompanying him shall be required to sign a form provided by OSHRC indicating that OSHRC is authorized to discuss the contents of the subject record in the presence of both individuals.

(e)*When compliance is possible* —(1) The Privacy Officer shall inform the requester of the determination to grant the request and shall make the record available to the individual in the manner requested, that is, either by forwarding a copy of the information to him or by making it available for review, unless:

(i)It is impracticable to provide the requester with a copy of a record, in which case the requester shall be so notified, and, in addition, be informed of the procedures set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or

(ii)The Privacy Officer has reason to believe that the cost of a copy of a record is considerably more expensive than anticipated by the requester, in which case he shall notify the requester of the estimated cost, and ascertain whether the requester still wishes to be provided with a copy of the information.

(2)Where a record is to be reviewed by the requester in person, the Privacy Officer shall inform the requester in writing of:

(i)The date on which the record shall become available for review, the location at which it may be reviewed, and the hours for inspection;

(ii)The type of identification that shall be required in order for him to review the record;

(iii)Such person's right to have a person of his own choosing accompany him to review the record; and

(iv)Such person's right to have a person other than himself review the record.

(3)If the requester seeks to inspect the record without receiving a copy, he shall not leave OSHRC premises with the record and shall sign a statement indicating he has reviewed a specific record or category of record.

(f)*Response when compliance is not possible* . A reply denying a written request to review a record shall be in writing signed by the Privacy Officer and shall be made only if such a record does not exist or does not contain personal information relating to the requester, or is exempt. This reply shall include a statement regarding the determining factors of denial, and the requester's rights to administrative appeal and thereafter judicial review in a district court of the United States. § 2400.7 Special procedures for requesting medical records.

(a)Upon an individual's request for access to his medical, including psychological records, the Privacy Officer shall make a preliminary determination on whether access to such records could have an adverse effect upon the requester. If the Privacy Officer determines that access could have an adverse effect on the requester, OSHRC shall notify the requester in writing and advise that the records at issue can be made available only to a physician of the requester's designation. Upon receipt of such designation, verification of the identity of the physician, and agreement by the physician to review the documents with the requesting individual, to explain the meaning of the documents, and to offer counseling designed to temper any adverse reaction, OSHRC shall forward such records to the designated physician.

(b)If, within sixty

(60)days of OSHRC's written request for a designation, the requester has failed to respond or designate a physician, or the physician fails to agree to the release conditions, then OSHRC shall hold the documents in abeyance and advise the requester that this action may be construed as a technical denial. OSHRC shall also advise the requester of his rights to administrative appeal and thereafter judicial review in a district court of the United States. § 2400.8 Procedures for requesting amendment.

(a)*Submission of requests for amendment* . Upon review of an individual's personal record, that individual may submit a request to amend such record. This request shall be submitted in writing to the Privacy Officer and shall include a statement of the amendment requested and the reasons for such amendment, e.g., relevance, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the record.

(b)*Action to be taken by the Privacy Officer* . Upon receiving an amendment request, the Privacy Officer shall promptly:

(1)Acknowledge in writing within ten

(10)working days the receipt of the request;

(2)Make such inquiry as is necessary to determine whether the amendment is appropriate; and

(3)Correct or eliminate any information that is found to be incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant to a statutory purpose of OSHRC, or untimely and notify the requester when this action is complete; or

(4)Notify the requester of a determination not to amend the record, of the reasons for the refusal, and of the requester's right to appeal in accordance with § 2400.9. § 2400.9 Procedures for appealing.

(a)*Submission of appeal* —(1) If a request to inspect, copy or amend a record is denied, in whole or in part, or if no determination is made within the period prescribed by this part, then the requester may appeal to the Chairman, Attn: Privacy Appeal, OSHRC, One Lafayette Centre, 1120-20th Street, NW., Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457.

(2)The requester shall submit his appeal in writing within thirty

(30)days of the date of denial, or within ninety

(90)days of such request if the appeal is from a failure of the Privacy Officer to make a determination. The letter of appeal should include, as applicable:

(i)Reasonable identification of the record to which access was sought or the amendment of which was requested.

(ii)A statement of the OSHRC action or failure to act being appealed and the relief sought.

(iii)A copy of the request, the notification of denial and any other related correspondence.

(b)*Final decisions* . The Chairman shall make his final decision not later than thirty

(30)working days from the date of the request, unless he extends the time for good cause to be shown by him but not to exceed ninety

(90)days from the date of the request. Any record found on appeal to be incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant, or untimely, shall within thirty

(30)working days of the date of such findings be appropriately amended.

(c)*Decision requirements* . The decision of the Chairman constitutes the final decision of OSHRC on the right of the requester to inspect, copy, change or update a record. The decision on the appeal shall be in writing and, in the event of a denial, shall set forth the reasons for such denial and state the individual's right to obtain judicial review in a district court of the United States. An indexed file of the agency decisions on appeal shall be maintained by the Privacy Officer.

(d)*Submission of statement of disagreement* . If the final decision does not satisfy the requester, then any statement of reasonable length, provided by that individual, setting forth a position regarding the disputed information, shall be accepted and included in the relevant record. § 2400.10 Schedule of fees.

(a)*Policy* . The purpose of this section is to establish fair and equitable fees to permit reproduction of records for concerned individuals.

(b)*Reproduction* —(1) For the fees associated with reproduction of records, refer to Appendix A to Part 2201, Schedule of Fees.

(2)OSHRC shall not normally furnish more than one copy of any record.

(c)* Limitations* . No fee shall be charged to any individual for the process of retrieving, reviewing, or amending records. [FR Doc. E6-12124 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7600-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 060712190-6190-01; I.D. 070606B] RIN 0648-AU55 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Hagfish Fishery; Reaffirmation of Control Date AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); reaffirmation of a control date for the Atlantic hagfish fishery; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces consideration of proposed rulemaking to control future access to the Atlantic hagfish fishery. The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) has indicated that limiting access to the hagfish fishery may be necessary to control participation in the fishery at a level that reduces capitalization and constrains fishing to sustainable levels, while ensuring that the fishery does not become overfished, as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). DATES: Written comments must be received by 5 p.m., local time, August 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Mail: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Reaffirmation of Atlantic Hagfish Control Date.” • Facsimile (fax):

(978)465-3116. • Email: HagfishControlDate@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments-Hagfish Control Date.” • Federal e-Rulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Van Pelt, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9244; fax 978-281-9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic hagfish ( *Myxine glutinosa* ) fishery in New England was developed in the early 1990s, with the first reported landings of around 1 million lb (454 mt) in 1993. Korean buyers quickly recognized that a fishery in the New England area could provide the high-quality hagfish skins used in making leather, as well as hagfish meat for human consumption. Reported hagfish landings in New England quadrupled during the first 4 years of the fishery (1993-1996), exceeding the highest reported landings in other North American hagfish fisheries (including British Columbia, Oregon, Washington, California, and Nova Scotia) by 1994. Since there is currently no management program for this fishery, and consequently no permitting or reporting requirements, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the actual level of hagfish landings. Moreover, the level of discards and discard mortality of hagfish culled at sea or rejected by the dealer or processor in port is unknown. In 2003, a working group comprised of scientists, fishery analysts, fishermen, and administrators met to review biological and fishery information for hagfish. The group identified important information gaps, as well as a number of potential approaches to acquiring the data needed to fill them. Hagfish have been collected in limited numbers throughout the 40 years of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) groundfish trawl survey. These NEFSC surveys provide the best available stock abundance information, but none of the surveys cover the entire range of hagfish habitat, which extends from depths of 25 m to greater than 1,000 m. The results of this working group effort were reviewed by the 37th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (37th SAW), and the Stock Assessment Review Committee's Consensus Summary can be found at: *http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0316/index.htm* . The Council initially considered limiting entry into the hagfish fishery by establishing August 28, 2002 (67 FR 55191), as the date for determining eligibility criteria (i.e., a control date). In a letter dated June 21, 2006, the Council requested that NMFS publish an ANPR to reaffirm the August 28, 2002, hagfish control date and to notify the public of the potential development of a limited access program for hagfish. This reaffirmation of the control date is to inform interested parties of potential limitations on future access, commonly referred to as limited access, and to discourage speculative entry into the hagfish fishery while the Council considers how access to the fishery can and should be controlled during the proposed development of the Atlantic Hagfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). By this notification, NMFS reaffirms, on behalf of the Council, that August 28, 2002, may be used as the “control date” to establish eligibility criteria for determining future levels of access to the hagfish fishery. Fishermen who have not participated in the hagfish fishery or who change their level of participation in this fishery are notified that entering this fishery or changing their level of participation after August 28, 2002, may not qualify them as previous participants, should such a criterion be the basis for future access to the hagfish resource. This notification also gives the public notice that interested participants should locate and save records that substantiate their participation in the hagfish fishery in Federal waters. Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery, regardless of their entry dates or intensity of participation in this fishery before or after the control date. In addition, the Council and NMFS may choose to give variably weighted consideration to participants active in the fishery before and after the control date. In order to be approved and implemented, any measures proposed by the Council to limit entry into the hagfish fishery must be found consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the measures and alternatives being considered for inclusion to the FMP by the Council. Various forums exist to allow opportunities for input, including public meetings and public comment periods as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and as provided for by the Administrative Procedure Act. Classification This ANPR has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: July 25, 2006. John Oliver, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-12128 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 145 Friday, July 28, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture Meeting AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. II, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). DATES: August 29-30, 2006, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 29 and 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 30. Written requests to make oral presentations at the meeting must be received by the contact person identified herein at least three business days before the meeting. ADDRESSES: Room 107A, USDA Jamie L. Whitten Building, 12th Street and Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Members of the public should enter the building through the Jefferson Drive entrance. Requests to make oral presentations at the meeting may be sent to the contact person at USDA, Office of the Deputy Secretary, 202 B Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 12th Street and Jefferson Drive, SW., Washington, DC 20250. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schechtman, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Deputy Secretary, USDA, Telephone

(202)720-3817; Fax

(202)690-4265; e-mail *michael.schechtman@ars.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The thirteenth meeting of the AC21 has been scheduled for August 29-30, 2006. The AC21 consists of 19 members representing the biotechnology industry, international plant genetics research, farmers, food manufacturers, commodity processors and shippers, environmental and consumer groups, and academic researchers. In addition, representatives from the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, and State, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture serve as “ex officio” members. At this meeting, the Committee plans to: transmit its latest consensus report, entitled, “Opportunities and Challenges for Agricultural Biotechnology: The Decade Ahead” to the Office of the Secretary, USDA; and consider outside presentations, organize, and begin work on the effects (in terms of planting decisions, markets, and rural communities) of coexistence issues on the development and use of new crops derived through modern biotechnology. Background information regarding the work of the AC21 will be available on the USDA Web site at *http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?navid=BIOTECH&parentnav=AGRICULTURE&navtype=RT.* On August 29, 2006, if time permits, reasonable provision will be made for oral presentations of no more than five minutes each in duration. The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. If you would like to attend the meetings, you must register by contacting Ms. Debra Lindsay at

(202)720-4074, by fax at

(202)720-3191 or by E-mail at *debra.lindsay@ars.usda.gov* at least 5 days prior to the meeting. Please provide your name, title, business affiliation, address, and telephone and fax numbers when you register. If you require a sign language interpreter or other special accommodation due to disability, please indicate those needs at the time of registration. Michael Schechtman, Acting Special Assistant for Biotechnology, Office of the Secretary, Biotechnology Coordinator, Agricultural Research Service. [FR Doc. E6-12071 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0030] National Animal Identification System (NAIS); Availability of a Revised Cooperative Agreement for Private Animal Tracking Databases AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a revised cooperative agreement that organizations may enter into with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in order to participate in the animal tracking database component of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). This revised cooperative agreement is intended to facilitate the integration of private and State animal tracking databases into the NAIS, which remains a voluntary program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, National Coordinator, National Animal Identification System, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-5571. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA)initiated implementation of the National Animal Identification System

(NAIS)in 2004. The NAIS is a cooperative State-Federal-industry program administered by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The main objective of the NAIS is to develop and implement a comprehensive information system which will support ongoing animal disease programs and enable State and Federal animal health officials to respond rapidly and effectively to animal health emergencies such as foreign animal disease outbreaks or emerging domestic diseases. NAIS is a voluntary program and is being established through a phased-in approach by implementing three key components: Premises registration, animal identification, and animal tracking. The USDA has already developed information systems to support the first two components. The third component will be developed through a government/industry partnership, in which animal movement information will be maintained in private and/or State databases. USDA will operate a portal system that will enable animal health officials to submit requests for information to the animal tracking databases

(ATDs)when investigating an animal disease event. The USDA's objective is to support the privatization of the animal tracking information component of the NAIS in the most practical, timely, and least burdensome manner possible. On April 7, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 17805-17806, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0030) a notice announcing the availability of three documents related to the NAIS: A document providing an update on the implementation plans, including operational milestones and participation goals; a document describing how private and State animal tracking databases

(ATDs)may be integrated into the NAIS to provide animal health officials with animal movement information when conducting a disease investigation; and a template for a cooperative agreement

(CA)that organizations that wish to participate in the ATD component of the NAIS may enter into with APHIS for that purpose. The second of the three documents referred to above, entitled “Integration of Private and State Animal Tracking Databases with the NAIS; Interim Development Phase,” presented our initial plans for moving forward with the implementation of the Animal Trace Processing System (ATPS), a system for processing animal movement data. The document described a two-phase implementation plan, consisting of an interim/development phase, which began in 2006, and an implementation phase, which is targeted for early 2007. The document also provided data standards and basic technical requirements that databases must meet to be eligible for participation in the interim/development phase. In order to participate in this interim/development phase, an organization with an ATD must complete a “Request for Evaluation of Interim Private/State Animal Tracking Database” to initiate an APHIS review of its system. If its system meets the interim requirements, the organization may then enter into a CA with APHIS. The CA provides for a government and industry collaborative process for the development of the technical details for the integration of private and State ATDs to ensure that animal health officials have the information when necessary to perform their duties. Entering into a CA does not imply that an organization's ATD will be eligible to participate in the NAIS as a fully compliant system after ATPS implementation is completed and final eligibility requirements are established. Since the April 2006 notice, we have revised the CA. This notice announces the availability of the revised CA. The revised CA may be viewed on the Internet at *http://www.usda.gov/nais* or on the Regulations.gov Web site. 1 You may request paper copies of the document by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the document (“Cooperative Agreement Between APHIS and Organizations with Qualifying Systems for Interim/Development Phase”) when requesting copies. 1 To view the revised CA and the other documents referenced in this notice, go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0030, then click on “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of July 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-12069 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service Notice of a Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this notice announces the Department's intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing program. DATES: Comments should be submitted no later than September 26, 2006 to be assured of consideration. *Additional Information and Comments:* Contact Bettyann Gonzales, Dairy Import Specialist, STOP 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021, telephone

(202)720-1344. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Program. *OMB Number:* 0551-0001. *Expiration Date of Approval:* December 31, 2006. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* The currently approved information collection supports the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Regulation (the Regulation) (7 CFR 6.20-6.37) which governs the administration of the import licensing system applicable to most dairy products subject to tariff-rate quotas (TRQs). The TRQs were established in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS)as a result of entry of certain provisions in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465) that converted existing absolute quotas to TRQs. Imports of nearly all cheese made from cow's milk (except soft-ripened cheese such as Brie) and certain non-cheese dairy products (including butter and dried milk) are subject to TRQs and the Regulation. Licenses are issued each quota year to eligible applicants and are valid for twelve months (January 1 through December 31). Only licensees may enter specified quantities of the subject dairy articles at the applicable in-quota tariff-rates. Importers who do not hold licenses may enter dairy articles only at the over-quota tariff-rates. Each quota year, all applicants must submit form FAS 923 (rev. 7-96). This form, available online, requires applicants to:

(1)Certify they are either an importer, manufacturer or exporter of certain dairy products;

(2)certify they meet the eligibility requirements of § 6.23 of the Regulation; and

(3)submit documentation required by § 6.23 and § 6.24 as proof of eligibility for import licenses. Applicants for non-historical licenses must also submit form FAS 923-A (rev. 7-96) (cheese) and/or FAS 923-B (rev. 7-96) (non-cheese dairy products). This form requires applicants to request licenses in descending order of preference for specific products and countries listed on the form. After licenses are issued, § 6.26 requires licensees to surrender by October 1 on form FAS 924-A, License Surrender Form, any license amount that a licensee does not intend to enter that year. These amounts are reallocated, to the extent practicable, to existing licensees for the remainder of that year based on requests submitted on form FAS 924-B, Application for Additional License Amounts. Form 924A and 924B requires the licensee to complete a scannable table listing the surrendered amount by license number, or listing the additional amounts requested by dairy article, supplying country and amount requested, in descending order of preference. The estimated total annual burden of 426 hours in the OMB inventory for the currently approved information collection will be decreased by 135 hours to 291 hours. The estimated public reporting burden for this collection of currently approved FAS 923, FAS 923-A and 923-B (one form) (rev. 7-96) is estimated to average 270 hours; and FAS 924-A and FAS 924-B (one form) is 21 hours. The estimated decrease in burden hours is based on the agency's new online program, the Dairy Accelerated Importer Retrieval and Information Exchange System (DAIRIES). *Estimate of burden:* The average burden, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering data needed, completing forms, and record keeping is estimated at .50 hour for form FAS 923, 923-A, 923-B (rev. 7-96) and .15 hour for form 924-A, 924-B. * Respondents:* Importers and manufacturers of cheese and non-cheese dairy products, and exporters of non-cheese dairy products. *Estimated number of respondents:* 540 for form FAS 923, 923-A, 923-B (rev. 7-96) and 140 for form 924-A, 924-B (rev. 7-96). *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1 *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 291 hours. *Requests for Comments:* Send comments regarding

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may b sent to Bettyann Gonzales, Dairy Import Specialist, Stop 1021, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021, or telephone

(202)720-1344 or e-mail *gonzalesb@fas.usda.gov.* Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments also will become a matter of public record. FAS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. Electronic submission of the information collection was implemented September 2005 in compliance with the GPEA. Signed at Washington, DC on July 20, 2006. Michael W. Yost, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. [FR Doc. 06-6526 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 41

Traces to 41 documents