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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-08-09 · DEPARTMENT OF LABOR · Notices

Notices. Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment

15,652 words·~71 min read·/register/2006/08/09/06-6798

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

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request August 3, 2006. The Department of Labor
(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection request
(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate 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; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Title:* Fire Protection (Underground Coal Mines). *OMB Number:* 1219-0054. *Frequency:* On occasion; Quarterly; Weekly; Semi-annually; and Annually. *Type of Response:* Recordkeeping and Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 886. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 324,500. *Average Annual Hours per Respondent:* Approximately 58 hours. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 51,580. *Total Annualized capital/startup costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $0. *Description:* Under 30 CFR 75.1100-3, chemical fire extinguishers must be examined every 6 months and the date of the examination recorded on a permanent tag attached to the extinguisher. Under section 75.1103-8, a qualified person must examine the automatic fire sensor and warning device systems on a weekly basis, and must conduct a functional test of the complete system at least once a year. Under section 75.1103-11, each fire hydrant and hose must be tested at least once a year, and the records of those tests shall be kept in an appropriate location. Under section 75.1501, mine operators are to train all miners on the requirements and identity of the responsible person designated for emergency evacuation. Under section 75.1502, the program of instruction requires revisions to existing fire-fighting and evacuations plans to address emergencies, and requires training of miners regarding the mine emergency evacuation fire fighting plan for all emergencies created as a result of a fire, an explosion, or a gas or water inundation. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-12941 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-317, 50-318, and 72-8; Renewed License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, and Materials License No. SNM-2505] In the Matter of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation); Order Approving Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Merger I. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (CCNPP Inc. or the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, which authorize the possession, use, and operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (the facility or CCNPP), and Materials License No. SNM-2505, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the Calvert Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (CCISFSI). CCNPP Inc. is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) to operate CCNPP and CCISFSI. The facility is located at the licensee's site in Calvert County, Maryland. II. By application dated January 23, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 and May 25, 2006 (collectively referred to herein as the application), Constellation Generation Group, LLC (CGG LLC), acting on behalf of CCNPP Inc., requested that the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, consent to the proposed indirect transfer of control of the licenses. According to the application filed by CGG LLC, on behalf of CCNPP Inc., CCNPP and CCISFSI are wholly owned by CCNPP Inc. CCNPP Inc. is wholly owned by Constellation Nuclear Power Plants, Inc. As stated in the application, in connection with the merger of CGG LLC's parent company, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (CEG, Inc.), and FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group), FPL Group will become a wholly owned subsidiary of CEG, Inc. At the closing of the merger, the former shareholders of FPL Group will own approximately 60% of the outstanding stock of CEG, Inc., and the pre-merger shareholders of CEG, Inc., will own the remaining approximately 40%. In addition, the CEG, Inc., board of directors will be composed of fifteen members, nine of whom will be named by FPL Group, and six of whom will be named by the current CEG, Inc. CCNPP Inc. will continue to own and operate the facility and the ISFSI and hold the licenses. Approval of the indirect transfer of the facility operating licenses and material license was requested by CGG LLC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50. Notice of the request for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the **Federal Register** on February 22, 2006 (71 FR 9168). Comments and a petition to intervene were received from the Maryland Office of the People's Counsel. However, the petition to intervene was dismissed by the Secretary of the Commission by order dated March 17, 2006. Under 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application by CGG LLC and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed merger and resulting indirect transfer of control of the licenses will not affect the qualifications of CCNPP Inc. as a holder of the CCNPP and CCISFSI licenses, and that the indirect transfer of control of the licenses as held by CCNPP Inc., is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated August 3, 2006. III. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, *it is hereby ordered* that the application regarding the proposed merger and indirect license transfer is approved, subject to the following condition: Should the proposed merger not be completed within one year from the date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may in writing be extended. This Order is effective upon issuance. For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated January 23, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 and May 25, 2006, and the safety evaluation dated August 3, 2006, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12924 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-400] Carolina Power & Light Company; Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) to partially withdraw its August 18, 2005, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (HNP), located in Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina. The proposed amendment would have allowed the use of fire-resistive electrical cable at HNP for protection of safe shutdown electrical cables. On May 1, 2006, the NRC staff issued Amendment No. 123 to the HNP Facility Operating License authorizing the use of fire-resistive electrical cable for the specific application of the volume control tank outlet valves, 1CS-165 and 1CS-166, in certain fire areas. In addition, the NRC staff stated that it would continue to review the proposed changes in the final safety analysis report to reflect the use of the fire-resistive electrical cable in other applications. The licensee requested to discontinue the review of the proposed changes to reflect the use of the fire-resistive electrical cable in other applications. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67745). However, by letter dated June 5, 2006, the licensee partially withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 18, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated February 15, 2006, and the licensee's letter dated June 5, 2006, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. L. Raghavan, Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12913 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410; License Nos. DPR-63 and NPF-69] In the Matter of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2); Order Approving Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Merger I. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMP LLC or the licensee) holds Facility Operating License No. DPR-63 and co-holds Facility Operating License No. NPF-69, which authorize the possession, use, and operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (the facility or NMP). NMP LLC is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) to operate NMP. The facility is located at the licensee's site in Oswego County, New York. II. By application dated January 23, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 and May 25, 2006 (collectively referred to herein as the application), Constellation Generation Group, LLC (CGG LLC), acting on behalf of NMP LLC, requested that the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, consent to the proposed indirect transfer of control of the licenses to the extent currently held by NMP LLC. Long Island Power Authority holds a 18-percent ownership interest in NMP Unit 2, but is not involved in this action. According to the application filed by CGG LLC, NMP Unit 1 is wholly owned by NMP LLC, and NMP Unit 2 is 82% owned by NMP LLC. NMP LLC is wholly owned by Constellation Nuclear Power Plants, Inc., which is wholly-owned by CGG LLC. As stated in the application, in connection with the merger of CGG LLC's parent company, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (CEG, Inc.), and FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group), FPL Group will become a wholly owned subsidiary of CEG, Inc. At the closing of the merger, the former shareholders of FPL Group will own approximately 60% of the outstanding stock of CEG, Inc., and the pre-merger shareholders of CEG, Inc., will own the remaining approximately 40%. In addition, the CEG, Inc., board of directors will be composed of fifteen members, nine of whom will be named by FPL Group, and six of whom will be named by the current CEG, Inc. NMP LLC will continue to own its current interests in and operate the facility and hold the licenses. Approval of the indirect transfer of the facility operating licenses was requested by CGG LLC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80. Notice of the request for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the **Federal Register** on February 22, 2006 (71 FR 9175). Comments and a petition to intervene were received from the Maryland Office of the People's Counsel. However, the petition to intervene was dismissed by the Secretary of the Commission by order dated March 17, 2006. Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application by CGG LLC and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed merger and resulting indirect transfer of control of the licenses will not affect the qualifications of NMP LLC as holder of the NMP licenses, and that the indirect transfer of control of the licenses as held by NMP LLC, is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated August 3, 2006. III. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, *it is hereby ordered* that the application regarding the proposed merger and indirect license transfers is approved, subject to the following condition: Should the proposed merger not be completed within one year from the date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may in writing be extended. This Order is effective upon issuance. For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated January 23, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated April 25 and May 25, 2006, and the safety evaluation dated August 3, 2006, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12923 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-244; Renewed License No. DPR-18] In the Matter of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant); Order Approving Application Regarding Proposed Corporate Merger I. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna LLC or the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (the facility or Ginna). Ginna LLC is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) to operate Ginna. The facility is located at the licensee's site in Wayne County, New York. II. By application dated January 23, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated April 25 and May 25, 2006, (collectively referred to herein as the application), Constellation Generation Group, LLC (CGG LLC), acting on behalf of Ginna LLC, requested that the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, consent to the proposed indirect transfer of control of the license. According to the application filed by CGG LLC, Ginna is wholly owned by Ginna LLC. Ginna LLC is wholly owned by Constellation Nuclear Power Plants, Inc. As stated in the application, in connection with the proposed merger of CGG LLC's parent company, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (CEG, Inc.), and FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group), FPL Group will become a wholly owned subsidiary of CEG, Inc. At the closing of the merger, the former shareholders of FPL Group will own approximately 60% of the outstanding stock of CEG, Inc., and the pre-merger shareholders of CEG, Inc., will own the remaining approximately 40%. In addition, the CEG, Inc., board of directors will be composed of fifteen members, nine of whom will be named by FPL Group, and six of whom will be named by the current CEG, Inc. Ginna LLC will continue to own and operate the facility and hold the license. Approval of the indirect transfer of the facility operating license was requested by CGG LLC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80. Notice of the request for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the **Federal Register** on February 22, 2006 (71 FR 9176). Comments and a petition to intervene were received from the Maryland Office of the People's Counsel. However, the petition to intervene was dismissed by the Secretary of the Commission by order dated March 17, 2006. Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application by CGG LLC and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed merger and resulting indirect transfer of control of the license will not affect the qualifications of Ginna LLC as a holder of the Ginna license, and that the indirect transfer of control of the license as held by Ginna LLC, is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated August 3, 2006. III. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered that the application regarding the proposed merger and indirect license transfer is approved, subject to the following condition: Should the proposed merger not be completed within one year from the date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, such date may in writing be extended. This Order is effective upon issuance. For further details with respect to this Order, see the initial application dated January 23, 2006, supplemented by letters dated April 25 and May 25, 2006, and the safety evaluation dated August 3, 2006, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by E-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12925 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-312] Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station; Notice of Receipt and Availability for Comment of License Termination Plan The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is in receipt of and is making available for public inspection and comment the License Termination Plan
(LTP)for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (Rancho Seco) located in Sacramento County, California. Rancho Seco was a 913-MWe pressurized water reactor designed by Babcock and Wilcox Company. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD)shut down Rancho Seco permanently on June 7, 1989 after approximately 15 years of operation. On August 29, 1989, SMUD formally notified the NRC that the plant was shut down permanently. On May 20, 1991, SMUD submitted the Rancho Seco Decommissioning Plan and on March 20, 1995, the NRC issued an Order approving the Decommissioning Plan and authorizing the decommissioning of Rancho Seco. In March 1997, SMUD submitted its Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR), in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82. The PSDAR superseded the original Decommissioning Plan and provided the information required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4). SMUD began actively decommissioning Rancho Seco in February 1997, and completed the transfer of all of the spent nuclear fuel to the 10 CFR part 72 ISFSI on August 21, 2002. Plant dismantlement is substantially complete and most of the systems, structures and components that were safety-related or important-to-safety have been removed from the plant and shipped for disposal. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9), all power reactor licensees must submit an application for termination of their license. The application for termination of license must be accompanied or preceded by an LTP to be submitted for NRC approval. If found acceptable by the NRC staff, the LTP is approved by license amendment, subject to such conditions and limitations as the NRC staff deems appropriate and necessary. SMUD submitted the proposed LTP for Rancho Seco by application dated April 12, 2006. In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1405 and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(iii), the NRC is providing notice to individuals in the vicinity of the site that the NRC is in receipt of the Rancho Seco LTP, and will accept comments from affected parties. The Rancho Seco LTP is available for public viewing at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR)or electronically through the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at accession numbers ML061460052, ML061460053, ML061460093, ML061460095, ML061460097, ML061460098, ML061460100, ML061460101, ML061460103, ML061460105, ML061460107, ML061460109, ML061460110, ML061460113, ML061460116, ML061460129, ML061460152, ML061460154, ML061460157. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by E-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov* . Comments regarding the Rancho Seco LTP may be submitted in writing and addressed to Mr. John B. Hickman, Mail Stop T-7E18, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-3017 or E-mail *jbh@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Claudia Craig, Chief, Reactor Decommissioning Section, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-12926 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499; License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80] STP Nuclear Operating Company; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated May 16, 2006, and its supplement dated June 26, 2006, Mr. Glenn Adler (petitioner) has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)take action with regard to South Texas Project Electric Generating Station. The petitioner requests that NRC take enforcement action in the form of a Demand for Information that would require the STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), the licensee for the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP), to provide NRC with docketed copies of the following: • Any assessments of the safety conscious work environment
(SCWE)at STP conducted since January 1, 2004; • Summaries of any associated action plans and the results of any efforts to remedy problems revealed by these surveys, including the following documents mentioned at an August 2005 meeting apparently convened to discuss the plant's SCWE, which contains— —a [strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats] SWOT analysis to assess the issues and actions required and follow-up on these actions to improve station alignment, —outsourcing lessons learned, and —an evaluation of information technology, supply chain, technical training, and Wackenhut to assess the issues and recommended actions; • Summaries of any associated action plans and the results of efforts to remedy problems revealed by such surveys in 2001 and 2003; and • All correspondence between NRC, STPNOC, and Wackenhut Corporation concerning the 2001, 2003, and 2005 Comprehensive Cultural Assessments (CCAs). As a basis for this request, the petitioner states that NRC issued an order in 1998 requiring STP to conduct periodic surveys by an independent survey research firm, after NRC found that the licensee had violated Federal law by subjecting four employees to a “hostile work environment” after the employees raised safety concerns. The licensee hired Synergy Consulting Services Corporation to conduct surveys. The Wackenhut Corporation took over security at STP in July 2001, after winning a 3-year contract for security, with an option for an additional 2 years. The petitioner further states that in the 2001 and 2003 CCAs, Wackenhut scored poorly on independent surveys assessing the STPNOC's nuclear safety culture, safety conscious work environment, general culture and work environment, leadership, management, and supervisory skills and practices at STP. The petitioner states that the STPNOC's performance deteriorated below its 2001 performance and that Wackenhut's performance problems continued as indicated in the 2005 CCA. The petitioner also states that STPNOC's action plans apparently were not successful in respect to Wackenhut and other entities and it is important for NRC to scrutinize the steps taken by STPNOC to rectify problems identified in the 2001, 2003, and 2005 cultural surveys. The petitioner concludes that, by obtaining the documents identified, NRC will be better informed about any improvements in STPNOC's SCWE. The petitioner also concludes that NRC will be better able to assess the effectiveness of previous redresses with Wackenhut and other entities, for whom problems persisted, despite STPNOC's apparently repeated efforts to remedy them. The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206 (10 CFR 2.206) of the Commission's regulations. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, the agency will take appropriate action on this petition within a reasonable time. A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12912 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Meetings of the ACNW Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Waste Management and the ACNW Full Committee; Notice of Meeting The ACNW Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Waste Management will hold a meeting on August 15-16, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. *The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:* Tuesday and Wednesday, August 15-16, 2006—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee will discuss the following proposed ACNW reports:
(1)Draft Standard Review Plan for Waste Determinations.
(2)Predicting the Performance of Cementitious Barriers.
(3)Draft Rule/Guidance on Preventing Legacy Sites.
(4)Dry Cask Storage PRA. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee on Thursday, August 17, 2006. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Antonio F. Dias (telephone 301-415-6805) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Thursday, August 17, 2006—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. The full Committee will discuss and approve the proposed ACNW reports noted above. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings were published in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59081). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Mr. Antonio F. Dias (telephone 301-415-6805), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Mr. Dias as to their particular needs. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: August 3, 2006. Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-12915 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on August 23-24, 2006, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland in Room T-2B3. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of portions that may be closed to discuss proprietary information of General Electric and other screen vendors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b( c)(4). *The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:* Wednesday, August 23, 2006—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business; Thursday, August 24, 2006—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. The Subcommittee will hear presentations from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the PWR Owners Group and several PWR sump screen vendors concerning their response to GSI-191 issues, including sump screen designs and testing, chemical effects, and downstream effects. The Subcommittee will also hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, their contractors and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: August 2, 2006. Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-12914 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget. ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has recently submitted to OMB for review the following three proposals for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et. seq* ). *OMB Control No.:* 0348-0004. *Title:* Request for Advance or Reimbursement. *Form No.:* SF-270. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* States, Local Governments, Universities, Non-Profit Organizations. *Number of Responses:* 100,000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 60 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The SF-270 is used to request funds for all nonconstruction grant programs when letters of credit or predetermined advance payment methods are not used. The Federal awarding agencies use information reported on this form for the award and general management of Federal assistance program awards. *OMB Control No.:* 0348-0002. *Title:* Outlay and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs. *Form No.:* SF-271. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* States, Local Governments, Universities, Non-Profit Organizations. *Number of Responses:* 40,000. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 60 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The SF-271 is used to request reimbursement for all construction grant programs. The Federal awarding agencies use information reported on this form for the award and general management of Federal assistance program awards. *OMB Control No.:* 0348-0046. *Title:* Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. *Form No.:* SF-LLL. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Respondents:* Contractors, States, Local Governments, Universities, Non-Profit Organizations, For-Profit Organizations, Individuals. *Number of Responses:* 600. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* The SF-LLL is the standard disclosure form for lobbying paid for with non-Federal funds, as required by the Byrd Amendment and amended by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. The Federal awarding agencies use information reported on this form for the award and general management of Federal contracts and assistance program awards. *Abstract:* On May 24, 2006, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)published a Notice in the **Federal Register** [71 FR 29991] seeking comments on the renewal without change of three standard forms, the SF-270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement; the SF-271, Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs; and the SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. These forms are required by OMB Circular A-102, “Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments,” and by OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 215, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non Profit Organizations.” One comment was received, requesting a change to the instructions for completion of the SF-LLL, clarifying the reporting requirement. OMB has not received information from the procurement or the grants communities regarding confusion over the requirement to report on non-Federal funds used to engage lobbyists to influence a Federal award, therefore we have not changed the instructions. Copies of these standard forms can be downloaded from the OMB Grants Management home page ( *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants* ). Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB Desk Officer by September 8, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Office of Management and Budget Gil Tran, Acting Chief, Financial Standards and Grants Branch. [FR Doc. E6-12967 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Revised Fiscal Year 2006 Tariff-Rate Quota Additional Allocations for Refined and Specialty Sugar; Initial Fiscal Year 2007 Tariff-Rate Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar, Refined Sugar, Specialty Sugar, and Sugar-Containing Products; and Notice of Agreement Between the United States and Mexico on Market Access for Sweeteners AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)is providing notice of additional allocations of the in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quotas for imported refined sugar and specialty sugar for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 (FY 2006). USTR is also providing notice of country-by-country allocations of the FY 2007 in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota for imported raw cane sugar, refined sugar, specialty sugar and sugar-containing products. In addition, USTR is providing notice of Agreement between the United States and Mexico on Market Access for Sweeteners. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: Inquiries may be mailed or delivered to Leslie O'Connor, Director of Agricultural Affairs, Office of Agricultural Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie O'Connor, Office of Agricultural Affairs, telephone: 202-395-6127 or facsimile: 202-395-4579. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the United States maintains a tariff-rate quota for imports of raw cane sugar and refined sugar. Section 404(d)(3) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a tariff-rate quota for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas. The President delegated this authority to the United States Trade Representative under Presidential Proclamation 6763 (60 FR 1007). FY 2006 On July 27, 2006, the Secretary of Agriculture increased the in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota for refined sugar for FY 2006 by 90,719 metric tons raw value, none of which is for specialty sugars. USTR is allocating a total of 26,681 metric tons raw value to Mexico. The remaining 64,038 metric tons raw value of the in-quota quantity may be supplied by any country on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to any other provision of law. The certificate of quota eligibility is required for sugar entering under the tariff-rate quota for refined sugar that is the product of a country that has been allocated a share of the tariff-rate quota for refined sugar. Also on July 27, 2006, the Secretary of Agriculture increased the in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota for specialty sugar for FY 2006 by 9,000 metric tons raw value. This quantity may be supplied by any country on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to any other provision of law. FY 2007 On July 27, 2006, the Secretary of Agriculture announced the sugar program provisions for fiscal year
(FY)2007 (Oct. 1, 2006, through Sept. 30, 2007). The in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota for raw cane sugar for FY 2007 is 1,343,992 metric tons* raw value, which is 226,797 metric tons above the minimal amount to which the United States is committed under the World Trade Organization
(WTO)Uruguay Round Agreements. The FY 2007 raw sugar tariff-rate quota will be allowed early entry beginning August 7, 2006 and no shipping patterns will be established. USTR is allocating this quantity. The total quantity of the raw cane sugar allocations of 1,343,992 metric tons raw value is being allocated to the following countries: Country FY 2007 raw cane sugar allocations (metric tons raw value) Argentina 55,112 Australia 106,378 Barbados 8,972 Belize 14,098 Bolivia 10,253 Brazil 185,841 Colombia 30,760 Congo 7,258 Costa Rica 19,225 Cote d'Ivoire 7,258 Dominican Republic 225,573 Ecuador 14,098 El Salvador 33,323 Fiji 11,535 Gabon 7,258 Guatemala 61,520 Guyana 15,380 Haiti 7,258 Honduras 12,817 India 10,253 Jamaica 14,098 Madagascar 7,258 Malawi 12,817 Mauritius 15,380 Mexico 7,258 Mozambique 16,662 Nicaragua 26,915 Panama 37,168 Papua New Guinea 7,258 Paraguay 7,258 Peru 52,548 Philippines 173,025 South Africa 29,478 St. Kitts & Nevis 7,258 Swaziland 20,507 Taiwan 15,380 Thailand 17,943 Trinidad & Tobago 8,972 Uruguay 7,258 Zimbabwe 15,380 These allocations are based on the countries' historical shipments to the United States. The allocations of the raw cane sugar tariff-rate quota to countries that are net importers of sugar are conditioned on receipt of the appropriate verifications of origin. On July 27, 2006, the Secretary of Agriculture established the FY 2007 refined sugar tariff-rate quota 57,000 metric tons raw value for which the sucrose content, by weight in the dry state, must have a polarimeter reading of 99.5 degrees or more. This amount includes the minimum level to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreement (22,000 metric tons raw value of which 1,656 metric tons raw value is specialty sugar) and an additional 35,000 metric tons raw value for specialty sugars. USTR is allocating a total of 10,300 metric tons raw value to Canada, 2,954 metric tons raw value to Mexico, and 7,090 metric tons raw value to be administered on a first-come, first-served basis. This additional amount combined with a specialty sugar allocation of 1,656. The 36,656 metric tons raw value allocation of specialty sugar, which includes the additional 35,000 metric tons raw value of specialty sugar and the specialty sugar allocation of 1,656 metric tons raw value included in the 22,000 metric tons raw value WTO minimum, will be administered on a first-come, first-served basis. With respect to the tariff-rate quota of 64,709 metric tons for certain sugar-containing products maintained under Additional U.S. Note to Chapter 17 to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 59,250 metric tons is being allocated to Canada. The remainder of the sugar-containing products tariff-rate quota is available for other countries on a first-come, first-served basis. Mexico As USDA noted in its press release of July 27, the United States and Mexico have determined jointly, in accordance with Annex 703.2 of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), that Mexico is projected to be a net surplus producer of sugar for FY 2007, and accordingly that Mexico will be permitted to enter up to 250,000 metric tons raw or refined sugar duty free in FY 2007. Quantities allocated to Mexico under WTO raw cane sugar tariff-rate quota, but not the WTO refined sugar tariff-rate quota, will be counted against this amount. Certificates for quota eligibility are required for entry of tariff-rate quota sugar from Mexico. As also noted in the USDA press release, the United States and Mexico have reached an agreement on market access for sweeteners. That agreement, set forth in an exchange of letters dated July 27, 2006, provides Mexico duty-free access to the United States for 250,000 metric tons raw value of raw or refined sugar in FY 2007 and at least 175,000 metric tons raw value of raw or refined sugar for the first three months of FY 2008 (Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, 2007). Under the agreement, Mexico will provide reciprocal access for U.S. high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), including 250,000 metric tons in FY 2007 and at least 175,000 metric tons for the first three months of FY 2008 (Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, 2007). Mexico also commits that effective January 1, 2008 it will not impose duties on U.S. HFCS. The United States and Mexico confirm that on July 3, 2006 they submitted a joint letter to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body regarding the elimination of Mexico's soft drink and distribution taxes. Mexico will establish a duty-free quota for U.S. sugar of not less than 7,258 metric tons raw value for each of marketing years 2006, 2007, and 2008. The over-quota tariff on U.S. sugar will be eliminated effective January 1, 2008 as provided for in the NAFTA. For its part, Mexico announced on July 27 its actions to implement the July 27 agreement with respect to FY 2007 amounts. Mexico and the United States will consult before July 1, 2007 in order to set allocations for the first three months of FY 2008, which per the agreement may range from 175,000 metric tons raw value to 250,000 metric tons raw value. *Conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.10231125 short tons. Susan C. Schwab, United States Trade Representative. [FR Doc. E6-12891 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-W6-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54266; File No. SR-Amex-2006-58] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to an Amendment to Amex Rule 27 August 2, 2006. On June 9, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend Amex Rule 27 to revise the number and composition of the Allocation Committee (“Allocations Committee” or “Committee”). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 30, 2006. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54039 (June 23, 2006), 71 FR 37627. Currently, the Committee consists of six members. Specifically, the Chief Executive Officer (or his or her designee), a representative of an upstairs member firm and either:
(i)Four brokers for equities and other securities admitted to trading on the Exchange except for Exchange Traded Funds and options;
(ii)two brokers and two Registered Traders for Exchange Traded Funds; or
(iii)two brokers and two Registered Options Traders for options. The Exchange proposes to change the number and composition of the Allocation Committee from six to eight members. The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 27 to revise the number and composition of the Allocations Committee so that the Committee consists of the Chief Executive Officer of the Exchange (or his or her designee), a representative of an upstairs member firm and either:
(i)Six brokers for equities and other securities admitted to trading on the Exchange except for Exchange Traded Funds and options;
(ii)three brokers and three Registered Traders for Exchange Traded Funds; or
(iii)three brokers and three Registered Options Traders for options. The minimum quorum requirement would remain at four persons. 4 According to the Exchange, because a small number of members now comprise the Allocations Committee, the minimum quorum requirement of four persons to conduct business has become overly burdensome. 5 The Exchange represents that the Allocations Committee often fails to meet the minimum quorum requirement to transact business. 4 The Commission notes that the Allocations Committee is chaired by the Chief Executive Officer (or his or her designee) who does not vote except to make or break a tie. *See* Amex Rule 27(a). 5 In October 2005, the Commission approved an Exchange proposal to combine three separate Allocation Committees into a single Committee and reduce the composition of the Committee to six members. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52646 (October 20, 2005), 70 FR 61854 (October 26, 2005). The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act, 6 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The Commission believes that increasing the number of members of the Committee, from six to eight members, will provide greater flexibility and efficiency to the Allocations Committee to better achieve the minimum four person quorum requirement to transact business. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 9 that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-58) is approved. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-12893 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54264; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-015] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Fees Associated With the Use of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.'s Web Central Registration Depository System August 2, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 17, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by Nasdaq pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change Nasdaq proposes to implement fees for Nasdaq members that are not members of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), in connection with such members' use of NASD's Web Central Registration Depository (“CRD”) system. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule change immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is *italicized.* 7003. Registration and Processing Fees *The following fees will be collected and retained by NASD via the Web CRD registration system for the registration of associated persons of Nasdaq members that are not also NASD members:* *(1) $85 for each initial Form U4 filed for the registration of a representative or principal;* *(2) $95 for the additional processing of each initial or amended Form U4 or Form U5 that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings;* *(3) $30 annually for each of the member's registered representatives and principals for system processing;* *(4) $13 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of fingerprints submitted by the member, plus a pass-through of any other charge imposed by the United States Department of Justice for processing each set of fingerprints;* *(5) $13 for processing and posting to the CRD system each set of fingerprint results and identifying information that has been processed through a self-regulatory organization other than NASD; and* *(6) a $75 session fee for each individual who is required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 1120.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt fees associated with the use of NASD's Web CRD system. 5 The proposed fees are similar to those fees charged by other SROs that use NASD's Web CRD. 6 Members will pay the NASD fees associated with Web CRD directly to NASD through Web CRD. 5 Use of NASD's Web CRD system by Nasdaq members is required by Nasdaq Rule 1013. Fees for the use of Web CRD by Nasdaq members that are also NASD members are assessed by NASD under Schedule A, Section 4 of the NASD By-Laws. This filing will enable the NASD to collect certain fees from Nasdaq members that are not NASD members. To the extent that such Nasdaq members are already members of another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) that participates in Web CRD, these fees are already being assessed by NASD under the authority of such other SRO. Accordingly, this filing will not result in the imposition of duplicative fees by NASD. 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53688 (April 20, 2006), 71 FR 24885 (April 27, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-24); 51641 (May 2, 2005), 70 FR 24155 (May 6, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-49); 48066 (June 19, 2003), 68 FR 38409 (June 27, 2003) (SR-AMEX-2003-49); and 45112 (November 28, 2001), 66 FR 63086 (December 4, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-47). Specifically, members will pay:
(a)An NASD CRD Processing Fee of $85 for each initial U4 filed;
(b)an NASD Disclosure Processing Fee of $95 for each initial or amended U4 or U5 that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings;
(c)an NASD Annual System Processing Fee of $30;
(d)a $75 session fee for individuals required to complete the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements under Nasdaq Rule 1120;
(e)a fingerprinting fee for submission of fingerprints to NASD equal to $13 plus a pass-through of the applicable Department of Justice fee (currently $22 for a first or a third submission ); and
(f)a $13 fee for processing fingerprint results where the member had prints processed through an SRO other than the NASD. NASD will process the fingerprint cards using Web CRD, in accordance with Nasdaq's Fingerprinting Plan. 7 7 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53908 (May 31, 2006), 71 FR 33007 (June 7, 2006). 2. Statutory Basis Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act 8 in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 9 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using Nasdaq's facilities. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 10 of the Act and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 11 in that it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable to Nasdaq members. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-015 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-015. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-015 and should be submitted on or before August 30, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-12892 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission. DATES: Submit comments on or before September 8, 2006. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. *Copies:* Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: *Agency Clearance Officer* , Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and *OMB Reviewer* , Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer,
(202)205-7044. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Entrepreneurial Development Management Information System (EDMIS) Counseling Information Form & Management Training Report. *No.:* 641 and 888. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Description of Respondents:* New established and prospective Small Business Owners using the services and programs by the Business Information Center Program. *Responses:* 276,489. *Annual Burden:* 86,593. Jacqueline White, Chief, Administrative Information Branch. [FR Doc. E6-12928 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the **Federal Register** notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission. DATES: Submit comments on or before September 8, 2006. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline. *Copies:* Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: *Agency Clearance Officer* , Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC.20416; and *OMB Reviewer* , Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer,
(202)205-7044. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: SBA Counseling Evaluation. *No.:* 1419. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Description of Respondents:* Small Business Clients. *Responses:* 15,000. *Annual Burden:* 2,550. Jacqueline White, Chief, Administrative Information Branch. [FR Doc. E6-12929 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10525 and # 10526] New Jersey Disaster Number NJ-00004 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Amendment 1. SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-1653-DR), dated 07/07/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/23/2006 and continuing through 07/10/2006. *Effective Date:* 07/10/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/05/2006. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/09/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of New Jersey, dated 07/07/2006, is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 06/23/2006 and continuing through 07/10/2006. All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12918 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #10557 and #10558] Ohio Disaster #OH-00007 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Ohio (FEMA-1656-DR), dated 08/01/2006. *Incident:* Severe Storms, Straight Line Winds, and Flooding. *Incident Period:* 07/27/2006 and continuing. *Effective Date:* 08/01/2006. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 10/02/2006. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 05/01/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 08/01/2006, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):* Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):* Ohio: Cuyahoga, Portage, Summit, Trumbull. Pennsylvania: Crawford, Erie. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent *For Physical Damage:* Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere 6.250 Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere 3.125 Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere 7.934 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere 5.000 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 *For Economic Injury:* Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10557 B and for economic injury is 10558 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12917 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), pursuant to the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-50), SBA Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs will host a public meeting on September 12-13, 2006, starting at 9 a.m. until 5p.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Office of Advocacy's Conference Room, located on the 7th Floor. The purpose of this meeting is to focus on finalizing the annual report to the President and Congress. Anyone wishing to attend must contact Cheryl Clark, Program Liaison, in the Office of Veterans Business Development, at
(202)205-6773, or e-mail *Cheryl.Clark@sba.gov.* Thomas M. Dryer, Acting Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-12930 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Small Business Size Standards: Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice of intent to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Plastics Pallets (Twin Sheet Thermoformed). SUMMARY: The U.S Small Business Administration
(SBA)is considering granting a request for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Plastics Pallets (Twin Sheet Thermoformed). If granted, the waiver would allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the products of any domestic manufacturer on a Federal contract set aside for small businesses; service-disabled veteran-owned small business or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program. DATES: Comments and source information must be submitted August 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and source information to Edith Butler, Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Government Contracting, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 8800, Washington, DC 20416. FOR FURTHER INFORMATI0N CONTACT: Edith Butler, Program Analyst, by telephone at
(202)619-0422; by FAX at
(202)481-1788; or by e-mail at *edith.butler@sba.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on a six digit coding system. The coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Plastics Pallets (Twin Sheet Thermoformed) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 326199 product number 4141. The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for this class of NAICS code within 15 days after date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Dated: August 3, 2006. Karen C. Hontz, Associate Administrator for Government Contracting. [FR Doc. E6-12916 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Social Security Ruling, SSR 06-03p.; Titles II and XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence From Sources Who Are Not “Acceptable Medical Sources” in Disability Claims; Considering Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental Agencies AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling. SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR 06-03p. This Ruling clarifies how we consider opinions from sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” and how we consider decisions made by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies on the issue of disability or blindness. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike O'Connor, Office of Disability Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401,
(410)965-1952. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) do not require us to publish this Social Security Ruling, we are doing so in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1). Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, special veterans benefits, and black lung benefits programs. Social Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all administrative levels of adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, and other interpretations of the law and regulations. Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are binding as precedents in adjudicating cases. If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or rescinded, we will publish a notice in the **Federal Register** to that effect. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Programs Nos. 96.001 Social Security-Disability Insurance; 96.004 Social Security-Survivors Insurance; 96.006 Supplemental Security Income.) Dated: August 2, 2006. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security. Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence From Sources Who Are Not “Acceptable Medical Sources” in Disability Claims; Considering Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental Agencies *Purpose:* To clarify how we consider opinions from sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” and how we consider decisions by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies on the issue of disability or blindness. *Citations:* Sections 205(a), 216(i), 221, 223(d), 1614(a)(3), 1631(d), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended; Regulations No. 4, subpart P, sections 404.1502, 404.1503, 404.1504, 404.1512(b), 404.1513(a), (d), and (e), 404.1520(a), 404.1527, and subpart Q, section 404.1613, and Regulations No. 16, subpart I, sections 416.902, 416.903, 416.904, 416.912(b), 416.913(a), (d), and (e), 416.920(a), 416.927 and subpart J, section 416.1013. *Introduction:* We use medical and other evidence to reach conclusions about an individual's impairment(s) to make a disability determination or decision as described in 20 CFR 404.1512, 404.1513, 416.912 and 416.913. In accordance with sections 223(d)(5) and 1614(a)(3)(H) of the Act, when we make a determination or decision of disability, we will consider all of the available evidence in the individual's case record. This includes, but is not limited to, objective medical evidence; other evidence from medical sources, including their opinions; statements by the individual and others about the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual's functioning; information from other “non-medical sources” and decisions by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies about whether an individual is disabled or blind. See 20 CFR 404.1512 and 416.912. Medical Sources The term “medical sources” refers to both “acceptable medical sources” and other health care providers who are not “acceptable medical sources.” See 20 CFR 404.1502 and 416.902. Under our current regulations, “acceptable medical sources” are: • Licensed physicians (medical or osteopathic doctors); • Licensed or certified psychologists. Included are school psychologists, or other licensed or certified individuals with other titles who perform the same function as a school psychologist in a school setting, for purposes of establishing mental retardation, learning disabilities, and borderline intellectual functioning only; • Licensed optometrists, for the measurement of visual acuity and visual fields (for claims under title II, we may need a report from a physician to determine other aspects of eye disease); • Licensed podiatrists, for purposes of establishing impairments of the foot, or foot and ankle only, depending on whether the State in which the podiatrist practices permits the practice of podiatry on the foot only, or the foot and ankle; and • Qualified speech-language pathologists, for purposes of establishing speech or language impairments only. See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a). Medical Source Distinction The distinction between “acceptable medical sources” and other health care providers who are not “acceptable medical sources” is necessary for three reasons. First, we need evidence from “acceptable medical sources” to establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment. See 20 CFR 404.1513(a) and 416.913(a). Second, only “acceptable medical sources” can give us medical opinions. See 20 CFR 404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2). Third, only “acceptable medical sources” can be considered treating sources, as defined in 20 CFR 404.1502 and 416.902, whose medical opinions may be entitled to controlling weight. See 20 CFR 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). Making a distinction between “acceptable medical sources” and medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” facilitates the application of our rules on establishing the existence of an impairment, evaluating medical opinions, and who can be considered a treating source. ”Other Sources” In addition to evidence from “acceptable medical sources,” we may use evidence from “other sources,” as defined in 20 CFR 404.1513(d) and 416.913(d), to show the severity of the individual's impairment(s) and how it affects the individual's ability to function. These sources include, but are not limited to: • Medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources,” such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, licensed clinical social workers, naturopaths, chiropractors, audiologists, and therapists; and • “Non-medical Sources” including, but not limited to: • Educational personnel, such as school teachers, counselors, early intervention team members, developmental center workers, and daycare center workers; • Public and private social welfare agency personnel, rehabilitation counselors; and • Spouses, parents and other caregivers, siblings, other relatives, friends, neighbors, clergy, and employers. Information from these “other sources” cannot establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment. Instead, there must be evidence from an “acceptable medical source” for this purpose. However, information from such “other sources” may be based on special knowledge of the individual and may provide insight into the severity of the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual's ability to function. Evaluating Opinions and Other Evidence Sections 404.1527 and 416.927 of our regulations provide general guidance for evaluating all relevant evidence in a case record and provide detailed rules for evaluating medical opinions from “acceptable medical sources.” 1 Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other “acceptable medical sources” that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s), including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what the individual can still do despite the impairment(s), and physical and mental restrictions. See 20 CFR 404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2). The regulations set out factors we consider in weighing medical opinions from treating sources, nontreating sources, and nonexamining sources. See 20 CFR 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). These factors include: 1 As explained in SSR 96-6p, “Titles II and XVI: Consideration of Administrative Findings of Fact by State Agency Medical and Psychological Consultants and Other Program Physicians and Psychologists at the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council Levels of Administrative Review; Medical Equivalence,” paragraphs (c), (d), and
(e)of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 provide general rules for evaluating the record, with particular attention to medical opinions from “acceptable medical sources.” • The examining relationship between the individual and the “acceptable medical source”; • The treatment relationship between the individual and a treating source, including its length, nature, and extent as well as frequency of examination; • The degree to which the “acceptable medical source” presents an explanation and relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; • How consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole; • Whether the opinion is from an “acceptable medical source” who is a specialist and is about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty; and • Any other factors brought to our attention, or of which we are aware, which tend to support or contradict the opinion. For example, the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that an “acceptable medical source” has, regardless of the source of that understanding, and the extent to which an “acceptable medical source” is familiar with the other information in the case record, are all relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion. In addition, these regulations provide that the final responsibility for deciding certain issues, such as whether an individual is disabled under the Act, is reserved to the Commissioner. These regulations provide specific criteria for evaluating medical opinions from “acceptable medical sources”; however, they do not explicitly address how to consider relevant opinions and other evidence from “other sources” listed in 20 CFR 404.1513(d) and 416.913(d). With the growth of managed health care in recent years and the emphasis on containing medical costs, medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources,” such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and licensed clinical social workers, have increasingly assumed a greater percentage of the treatment and evaluation functions previously handled primarily by physicians and psychologists. Opinions from these medical sources, who are not technically deemed “acceptable medical sources” under our rules, are important and should be evaluated on key issues such as impairment severity and functional effects, along with the other relevant evidence in the file. “Non-medical sources” who have had contact with the individual in their professional capacity, such as teachers, school counselors, and social welfare agency personnel who are not health care providers, are also valuable sources of evidence for assessing impairment severity and functioning. Often, these sources have close contact with the individuals and have personal knowledge and expertise to make judgments about their impairment(s), activities, and level of functioning over a period of time. Consistent with 20 CFR 404.1513(d)(4) and 416.913(d)(4), we also consider evidence provided by other “non-medical sources” such as spouses, other relatives, friends, employers, and neighbors. Although 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 do not address explicitly how to evaluate evidence (including opinions) from “other sources,” they do require consideration of such evidence when evaluating an “acceptable medical source's” opinion. For example, SSA's regulations include a provision that requires adjudicators to consider any other factors brought to our attention, or of which we are aware, which tend to support or contradict a medical opinion. Information, including opinions, from “other sources”—both medical sources and “non-medical sources”—can be important in this regard. In addition, and as already noted, the Act requires us to consider all of the available evidence in the individual's case record in every case. Accordingly, this ruling clarifies how we consider opinions and other evidence from medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” and from “non-medical sources,” such as teachers, school counselors, social workers, and others who have seen the individual in their professional capacity, as well as evidence from employers, spouses, relatives, and friends. This ruling also explains how we consider decisions on disability made by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies. Policy Interpretation I. Evidence From “Other Sources” As set forth in regulations at 20 CFR 404.1527(b) and 416.927(b), we consider all relevant evidence in the case record when we make a determination or decision about whether the individual is disabled. Evidence includes, but is not limited to, opinion evidence from “acceptable medical sources,” medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources,” and “non-medical sources” who have seen the individual in their professional capacity. The weight to which such evidence may be entitled will vary according to the particular facts of the case, the source of the opinion, including that source's qualifications, the issue(s) that the opinion is about, and many other factors, as described below. Factors for Considering Opinion Evidence Although the factors in 20 CFR 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d) explicitly apply only to the evaluation of medical opinions from “acceptable medical sources,” these same factors can be applied to opinion evidence from “other sources.” These factors represent basic principles that apply to the consideration of all opinions from medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” as well as from “other sources,” such as teachers and school counselors, who have seen the individual in their professional capacity. These factors include: • How long the source has known and how frequently the source has seen the individual; • How consistent the opinion is with other evidence; • The degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion; • How well the source explains the opinion; • Whether the source has a specialty or area of expertise related to the individual's impairment(s); and • Any other factors that tend to support or refute the opinion. Opinions From Medical Sources Who Are Not “Acceptable Medical Sources” Opinions from “other medical sources” may reflect the source's judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from “acceptable medical sources,” including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what the individual can still do despite the impairment(s), and physical and mental restrictions. Not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case. The evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an “acceptable medical source” depends on the particular facts in each case. Each case must be adjudicated on its own merits based on a consideration of the probative value of the opinions and a weighing of all the evidence in that particular case. The fact that a medical opinion is from an “acceptable medical source” is a factor that may justify giving that opinion greater weight than an opinion from a medical source who is not an “acceptable medical source” because, as we previously indicated in the preamble to our regulations at 65 FR 34955, dated June 1, 2000, “acceptable medical sources” “are the most qualified health care professionals.” However, depending on the particular facts in a case, and after applying the factors for weighing opinion evidence, an opinion from a medical source who is not an “acceptable medical source” may outweigh the opinion of an “acceptable medical source,” including the medical opinion of a treating source. For example, it may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an “acceptable medical source” if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source and has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for his or her opinion. Giving more weight to the opinion from a medical source who is not an “acceptable medical source” than to the opinion from a treating source does not conflict with the treating source rules in 20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) and SSR 96-2p, “Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight To Treating Source Medical Opinions.” Evidence From “Non-Medical Sources” Opinions from “non-medical sources” who have seen the individual in their professional capacity should be evaluated by using the applicable factors listed above in the section “Factors for Weighing Opinion Evidence.” Not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case. The evaluation of an opinion from a “non-medical source” who has seen the individual in his or her professional capacity depends on the particular facts in each case. Each case must be adjudicated on its own merits based on a consideration of the probative value of the opinions and a weighing of all the evidence in that particular case. For opinions from sources such as teachers, counselors, and social workers who are not medical sources, and other non-medical professionals, it would be appropriate to consider such factors as the nature and extent of the relationship between the source and the individual, the source's qualifications, the source's area of specialty or expertise, the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support his or her opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with other evidence, and any other factors that tend to support or refute the opinion. An opinion from a “non-medical source” who has seen the claimant in his or her professional capacity may, under certain circumstances, properly be determined to outweigh the opinion from a medical source, including a treating source. For example, this could occur if the “non-medical source” has seen the individual more often and has greater knowledge of the individual's functioning over time and if the “non-medical source's” opinion has better supporting evidence and is more consistent with the evidence as a whole. In considering evidence from “non-medical sources” who have not seen the individual in a professional capacity in connection with their impairments, such as spouses, parents, friends, and neighbors, it would be appropriate to consider such factors as the nature and extent of the relationship, whether the evidence is consistent with other evidence, and any other factors that tend to support or refute the evidence. Explanation of the Consideration Given to Opinions From “Other Sources” Since there is a requirement to consider all relevant evidence in an individual's case record, the case record should reflect the consideration of opinions from medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” and from “non-medical sources” who have seen the claimant in their professional capacity. Although there is a distinction between what an adjudicator must consider and what the adjudicator must explain in the disability determination or decision, the adjudicator generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these “other sources,” or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator's reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case. In addition, when an adjudicator determines that an opinion from such a source is entitled to greater weight than a medical opinion from a treating source, the adjudicator must explain the reasons in the notice of decision in hearing cases and in the notice of determination (that is, in the personalized disability notice) at the initial and reconsideration levels, if the determination is less than fully favorable. II. Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental Agencies The regulations at 20 CFR 404.1504 and 416.904 provide that: [a] decision by any nongovernmental agency or any other governmental agency about whether you are disabled or blind is based on its rules and is not our decision about whether you are disabled or blind. We must make a disability or blindness determination based on social security law. Therefore, a determination made by another agency [ *e.g.* , Workers' Compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or an insurance company] that you are disabled or blind is not binding on us. Under sections 221 and 1633 of the Act, only a State agency or the Commissioner can make a determination based on Social Security law that you are blind or disabled. Our regulations at 20 CFR 404.1527(e) and 416.927(e) make clear that the final responsibility for deciding certain issues, such as whether you are disabled, is reserved to the Commissioner (see also SSR 96-5p, “Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner”). However, we are required to evaluate all the evidence in the case record that may have a bearing on our determination or decision of disability, including decisions by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies (20 CFR 404.1512(b)(5) and 416.912(b)(5)). Therefore, evidence of a disability decision by another governmental or nongovernmental agency cannot be ignored and must be considered. These decisions, and the evidence used to make these decisions, may provide insight into the individual's mental and physical impairment(s) and show the degree of disability determined by these agencies based on their rules. We will evaluate the opinion evidence from medical sources, as well as “non-medical sources” who have had contact with the individual in their professional capacity, used by other agencies, that are in our case record, in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1527, 416.927, Social Security Rulings 96-2p and 96-5p, and the applicable factors listed above in the section “Factors for Weighing Opinion Evidence.” Because the ultimate responsibility for determining whether an individual is disabled under Social Security law rests with the Commissioner, we are not bound by disability decisions by other governmental and nongovernmental agencies. In addition, because other agencies may apply different rules and standards than we do for determining whether an individual is disabled, this may limit the relevance of a determination of disability made by another agency. However, the adjudicator should explain the consideration given to these decisions in the notice of decision for hearing cases and in the case record for initial and reconsideration cases. *Effective Date:* This SSR is effective upon publication in the **Federal Register** . *Cross-References:* Social Security Rulings 96-2p, “Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions,” SSR 96-5p, “Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner”; Program Operations Manual System sections DI 22505.003, DI 24515.001, DI 24515.002, DI 24515.011, and DI 24515.012. [FR Doc. E6-12951 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5455] Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Advisory Committee for the Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union; Notice of Committee Renewal I. Renewal of Advisory Committee The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee for the Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. This advisory committee makes recommendations to the Secretary of State on funding for applications submitted for the Research and Training Program on Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (Title VIII). These applications are submitted in response to an annual open competition among U.S. national organizations with interest and expertise administering research and training programs in the Russian, Eurasian, and Central and East European fields. The program seeks to build and sustain U.S. expertise on these regions through support for advanced graduate training, language training, and postdoctoral research. The committee includes representatives of the Secretaries of Defense and Education, the Librarian of Congress, and the Presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies and the Association of American Universities. The Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research chairs the advisory committee for the Secretary of State. The committee meets at least once annually to recommend grant policies and recipients. For further information, please call Susie Baker, INR/RES, U.S. Department of State,
(202)647-0243. Dated: July 31, 2006. Susan H. Nelson, Executive Director, Acting Advisory Committee for Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-12981 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-32-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5486] Determination To Waive the Certification Requirement That the Government of Afghanistan Is Cooperating Fully With U.S.-Funded Poppy Eradication and Interdiction Efforts in Afghanistan Pursuant to the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-102) (“the Act”) under the heading Economic Support Fund, provisos 11 through 13, and the May 8, 2006 Assignment of Function from the President to the Secretary of State, I hereby determine that it is vital to the national security interests of the United States to waive the requirement that the Secretary of State certify to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of Afghanistan at both the national and local level is cooperating fully with the United States-funded poppy eradication and interdiction efforts in Afghanistan. This determination shall be reported to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with the Act, and published in the **Federal Register** . Dated: May 22, 2006. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-12980 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-17-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5487] Certification Related to Aerial Eradication in Colombia Under the Andean Counterdrug Initiative Section of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, Division D, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2006, (Pub. L. 109-102) Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including under the Andean Counterdrug Initiative section of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, Division D, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2006, (Pub. L. 109-102) (the “FOAA”), I hereby determine and certify that:
(1)The herbicide mixture used for fumigation of illicit crops in Colombia is being used in accordance with EPA label requirements for comparable use in the United States and in accordance with Colombian laws; and
(2)the herbicide mixture, in the manner it is being used, does not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment, including endemic species;
(3)that complaints of harm to health or licit crops caused by such fumigation are evaluated and fair compensation is being paid for meritorious claims; and
(4)that programs are being implemented by the United States Agency for International Development, the Government of Colombia, or other organizations, in consultation with local communities, to provide alternative sources of income in areas where security permits for small-acreage growers whose illicit crops are targeted for fumigation. This Certification shall be published in the **Federal Register** and copies shall be transmitted to the appropriate committees of Congress. Dated: July 20, 2006. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-12979 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-17-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Financial Management Service; Senior Executive Service; Financial Management Performance Review Board
(PRB)AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of members to the Financial Management Service
(FMS)Performance Review Board (PRB). DATES: This notice is effective on August 9, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith R. Tillman, Deputy Commissioner, Financial Management Service, 401 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC; telephone
(202)874-7000. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice is given of the appointment of individuals to serve as members of the FMS PRB. This Board reviews the performance appraisals of career senior executives below the Assistant Commissioner level and makes recommendations regarding ratings, bonuses, and other personnel actions. Four voting members constitute a quorum. The names and titles of the FMS PRB members are as follows: Primary Members Judith R. Tillman, Deputy Commissioner Gary Grippo, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance J. Martin Mills, Assistant Commissioner, Debt Management Services Wanda Rogers, Assistant Commissioner, Financial Operations Charles R. Simpson, Assistant Commissioner, Information Resources D. James Sturgill, Assistant Commissioner, Governmentwide Accounting Alternate Member Scott H. Johnson, Assistant Commissioner, Management (Chief Financial Officer) Dated: August 4, 2006. Judith R. Tillman, Deputy Commissioner. [FR Doc. 06-6798 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
CFR
6 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 2 CFR 215
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • Pub. L. 106-50
  • Pub. L. 109-102
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment
C.F.R.§ 75.1100-3
C.F.R.§ 50.80
C.F.R.§ 72.50
U.S.C.§ 2201
C.F.R.§ 50.82
C.F.R.§ 20.1405
C.F.R.§ 2.206
U.S.C.§ 552b
U.S.C.§ 3501
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite10 CFR 72
Cite2 CFR 215
Cites 31 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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