Notices. Notice of receipt of application for a temporary exemption from air bag provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No

14,457 words·~66 min read·/register/2006/08/15/06-6882

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

BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25592] Morgan Motor Company Limited; Receipt of Application for a Temporary Exemption From Air Bag Provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of receipt of application for a temporary exemption from air bag provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection* .

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR Part 555, Morgan Motor Company, Limited (Morgan) has applied for a Temporary Exemption from the air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant Crash Protection,” for the Morgan “traditional roadster.” The basis of the application is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), and have made no judgment on the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than August 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Glancy or Eric Stas in the Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-366-3820). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Founded in 1909, Morgan is a small, privately-owned vehicle manufacturer producing approximately 600 specialty sports cars per year. 1 Morgan manufactures several models, but at present, only sells the Aero 8 in the U.S. Morgan intended to produce a vehicle line specific to the U.S. market, with Ford supplying the engine and transmission.

However, for technical reasons, the project did not come to fruition, and Morgan temporarily stopped selling vehicles in the U.S. in 2004. In May 2005, Morgan obtained a temporary exemption from this agency's bumper standard and began selling the Aero 8 in the U.S. 1 A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production does not exceed 10,000, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator (15 U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)).

On July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39386), NHTSA published a notice of receipt of five applications for temporary exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* . Among these petitions was one from Morgan, for the Aero 8, which is discussed at pages 39390-39391. Morgan's petition is included in the docket for that notice, *i.e.* , Docket NHTSA-2006-25324. That notice of receipt did not address a second request by Morgan.

In a document dated February 6, 2006, Morgan petitioned for an exemption for a different vehicle, its “traditional roadster,” from all air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208 (i.e., the standard's requirement that vehicles be equipped with air bags as well as the advanced air bag requirements) from September 2006 through September 2009. That company titled this document “Supplement to Pending Morgan Part 555 Temporary Exemption.” Morgan explained that it did not file a petition for the traditional roadster at the same time as it petitioned for the Aero 8 because in October 2005 (when the Aero 8 petition was filed), Morgan planned to sell only the Aero 8 in the U.S. from September 2006-September 2009.

The company did not plan to sell the traditional roadster during that period because the Rover engine used in the U.S. version of the traditional roadster for 35 years was no longer able to meet more stringent U.S. emissions standards. In late 2005, Morgan found a U.S.-certified Ford V6 engine for the U.S. traditional roadster and built a limited production run of 80 vehicles. The traditional roadster “immediately sold out.” In order to maintain U.S. sales and to produce revenue, Morgan then decided to continue to sell the U.S. traditional roadster.

However, while the traditional roadster had a mechanical Breed standard air bag system since 1996, those air bags are now out of production and are no longer available. Morgan indicated that the final limited production run of 80 vehicles using the Ford V6 engine used the last of these air bag systems. In addition, Morgan stated that the Aero standard air bag system cannot be fitted to the traditional roadster because the interiors and chassis are completely different. We note that in its February 2006 document, Morgan asked that its exemption requests for the traditional roadster and Aero be considered independently.

As indicated above, we have already requested public comments on Morgan's petition concerning the Aero, and expect to issue a decision shortly on that request. The agency will make a decision concerning Morgan's petition concerning the traditional roadster after considering public comments submitted in response to this notice. In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger cars and light trucks, requiring what is commonly known as “advanced air bags.” 2 The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in moderate to high speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low speed crashes. 2 See 65 FR 30680;

May 12, 2000. The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in rear seats. The new requirements were phased in beginning with the 2004 model year. Small volume manufacturers are not subject to the advanced air bag requirements until September 1, 2006, but their efforts to bring their respective vehicles into compliance with these requirements began several years ago.

However, because the new requirements were challenging, major air bag suppliers concentrated their efforts on working with large volume manufacturers and thus, until recently, small volume manufacturers had limited access to advanced air bag technology. Because of the complex nature of the requirements for protecting out-of-position occupants, “off-the-shelf” systems could not be readily adopted. Further, the high costs of developing custom advanced air bag systems, compared to limited potential profits from selling those air bags to small volume manufacturers, discouraged some air bag suppliers from working with those manufacturers.

The agency has carefully tracked occupant fatalities resulting from air bag deployment. Our data indicate that the agency's efforts in the area of consumer education and manufacturers' providing depowered air bags were successful in reducing air bag fatalities even before advanced air bag requirements were implemented. As indicated above, for its traditional roadster, Morgan is requesting an exemption not only from the advanced air bag requirements, but also from the standard's requirements for air bags altogether.

As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implications of any temporary exemptions granted by this agency. The agency is accepting comment on whether to grant Morgan's application. II. Morgan's Statement of Economic Hardship Morgan stated that without the sales of the U.S. traditional roadster from September 2006-September 2009, it would lose an additional $315,000 on top of the losses estimated in the October 2005 petition for the Aero. 3 It further stated that if it were able to sell the traditional roadster in the U.S. during the exemption period, “the resulting revenues would also be critical to funding the development of the new advanced air bag for use in all Morgan vehicles destined for the U.S. after September 2009.

” Morgan's previous financial submission indicates that the company's losses over the last 5 years have totaled more than $3,600,000. In 2004, Morgan made a small profit for the first time in three years. Morgan predicted a net loss for fiscal year 2005. 3 Estimated to be between $3,196,179 and $5,066,938. When costs for interior redesign, crash cars, and tooling are included, the estimate rises to between $5,648,679 and $7,519,438. (See 71 FR at 39391.) Morgan stated that even adding the projected sales of the traditional roadster, the total U.S.

“exempted-car sales” forecast for September 2006-September 2009 remain about the same: For 2006, 50 vehicles; for 2007, 250 vehicles; for 2008, 250 vehicles; and for 2009, 250 vehicles. Morgan also provided information on the sales of the 80 model year 2005 traditional roadsters (with the Ford V6 engine). We note that in commenting on the agency's July 2006 notice concerning its request for a temporary exemption for the Aero, Morgan indicated that the temporary exemptions it was seeking would involve 400 Aeros over three years, and 400 Roadsters over three years.

III. Morgan's Statement of Good Faith Efforts To Comply In its October 2005 submission, Morgan stated that it has been working with the air bag supplier Siemens to develop an advanced air bag system for the Aero 8. However, a lack of funds and technical problems precluded the implementation of an advanced air bag system for the Aero 8. It said that the minimum time needed to develop an advanced air bag system (provided that there is a source of revenue) is 2 years. Specific technical challenges include the following matters.

Morgan does not have access to the necessary sensor technology to pursue the “full suppression” passenger air bag option. Due to the design of the Aero 8 platform dashboard, an entirely new interior solution and design must be developed. Chassis modifications are anticipated due to the originally stiff chassis design. In its February 2006 petition, Morgan stated that it cannot install airbags in the U.S. traditional roadster to be built between September 2006-September 2009 even though the Aero 8 vehicles built during that period will have standard air bags.

Morgan provided two reasons why the traditional roadster “cannot have air bags” while the Aero 8 can. First, since 1996, the traditional roadsters have had a mechanical Breed standard air bag system. In 1997, Breed stopped production of the air bags fitted to the traditional roadsters. Thus, these bags are no longer available. Morgan states that it cannot obtain any more components. The final run of the 80 traditional roadsters with the Ford V6 engine used the last of the air bag systems.

Second, the Aero 8 standard air bag system cannot be fitted into the traditional roadster because the interiors and chassis are completely different. Morgan asserts that it would not be possible to integrate the Aero 8 air bag components into the traditional roadster's design because of both physical and operational differences. The Aero 8 air bag steering wheel will not fit in the traditional roadster's design, and the Aero 8 passenger air bag will not fit into the traditional roadster's instrument panel.

In terms of air bag operation, to use the Aero 8 system in the traditional roadster, there would have to be a new deployment control/trigger system developed due to the significantly different crash pulses between the Aero 8 aluminum tub and the traditional roadster steel chassis. Morgan stated that the traditional roadster will have an advanced air bag system at the same time that the Aero 8 will. At present, the traditional roadster uses the same design as it has had since 1936, a steel chassis with a wooden frame for the body panels.

As part of the development of the advanced air bag system, Morgan plans to switch the traditional roadster onto the aluminum tub chassis used by the Aero 8. In this way, the advanced air bag program (through Siemens) that Morgan outlined in its Part 555 exemption petition for the Aero 8 will also be applicable to the traditional roadster. Morgan believes that when its advanced air bag system is ready in 2009, the air bag system will simultaneously be installed in both the Aero and traditional roadster models.

Morgan asserts that it “obviously cannot expend the resources to develop an air bag system—advanced or standard” for the traditional roadster that is separate from the air bag system being developed for the Aero 8. Morgan cites this inability as the reason why there cannot be an interim standard air bag system for the traditional roadster during the period September 2006-September 2009. IV. Morgan's Statement of Public Interest In its original petition, which concerned the Aero, Morgan put forth several arguments supporting its view that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest.

According to Morgan, if the exemption was denied and Morgan stops U.S. sales, Morgan's U.S. dealers would unavoidably have numerous lay-offs, resulting in U.S. unemployment. Denial of an exemption would reduce consumer choice in the specialty sports car market sector in which Morgan cars compete. That company argued that the Morgan vehicles will not be used extensively by owners, and are unlikely to carry small children. Finally, according to Morgan, granting an exemption would assure the continued availability of proper parts and service support for existing Morgan owners.

Without an exemption, Morgan would be forced from the U.S. market, and Morgan dealers would find it difficult to support existing customers. We note that in its February 2006 document requesting an exemption for the traditional roadster, that company generally did not discuss whether or how these arguments would apply to its request concerning the traditional roadster. We invite Morgan to address this issue. As indicated above, Morgan did argue that revenues from selling the traditional roadster would be critical to funding the development of the new advanced air bag for use in all Morgan vehicles destined for the U.S. after September 2009.

V. How You May Comment on the Morgan “Traditional Roadster” Application We invite you to submit comments on the application described above. You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket number in the heading of this document) by any of the following methods: • Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site by clicking on “Help and Information” or “Help/Info.” • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice.

Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket in order to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* We are providing a 15-day comment period in light of the short period of time between now and September 1, 2006. We shall consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date.

We shall publish a notice of final action on the application in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. (49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on: August 9, 2006. H. Keith Brewer, Director, Crash Avoidance Standards. [FR Doc. E6-13314 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 267X)] Norfolk Southern Railway Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Kanawha County, WV Norfolk Southern Railway Company

(NSR)has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR Part 1152 Subpart F— *Exempt Abandonments* to abandon a 12.22-mile line of railroad between milepost TP 14.69 at Blue Creek, and milepost TP 26.91 at Acup (Sanderson), in Kanawha County, WV. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 25026 and 25045. NSR has certified that:

(1)No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years;

(2)no overhead traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years and overhead traffic, if there were any, could be rerouted over other lines;

(3)no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and

(4)the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen* , 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance

(OFA)has been received, this exemption will be effective on September 14, 2006, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues, 1 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), 2 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by August 25, 2006. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by September 5, 2006, with: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA)in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption's effective date. *See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines* , 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption's effective date. 2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is set at $1,300. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to NSR's representative: James R. Paschall, Senior General Attorney, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* NSR has filed environmental and historic reports which address the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment

(EA)by August 18, 2006. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at

(202)565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR's filing of a notice of consummation by August 15, 2007, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: August 7, 2006. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13244 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 9, 2006. The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20220. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before September 14, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service

(IRS)*OMB Number:* 1545-0228. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Installment Sale Income. *Form:* 6252. *Description:* Information is needed to figure and report an installment sale for a casual or incidental sale of personal property, and a sale of real property by someone not in the business of selling real estate. Data is used to determine whether the installment sale has been properly reported and the correct amount of profit is included in income on the taxpayer's return. *Respondents:* Business and other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 1,597,008 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-0314. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Form 6466, Transmittal of Forms W-4 Reported Magnetically/ Electronically; Form 6467, Transmittal of Forms W-4 Reported Magnetically/Electronically (Continuation). *Form:* 6466 and 6467. *Description:* Under Regulation Section 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g), employers are required to submit certain withholding certificates (Form W-4) to the IRS. Transmittal Form 6466 and the continuation sheet Form 6467 are submitted by an employer, or authorized agent of the employer, who will be reporting submissions of Form W-4 on magnetic/electronic media. *Respondents:* Business and other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 133 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224,

(202)622-3428. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503,

(202)395-7316. Robert Dahl, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-13309 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Comment Request: Community Development Financial Institutions Fund: Comment Request on the Release of Transaction Level Report Data and Allocation Tracking System Data Provided by New Markets Tax Credit Program Allocatees ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the Fund), a government corporation within the Department of the Treasury, is soliciting comments on the release of Transaction Level Report Data and Allocation Tracking System Data provided to the Fund by New Markets Tax Credit

(NMTC)Program allocatees. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2006 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted in writing and sent to Donna Fabiani, Manager for Financial Strategies and Research, as follows:

(i)By mail to: Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005;

(ii)by e-mail to: *NMTCTLRcomment@cdfi.treas.gov;* or

(iii)by fax to:

(202)622-7754. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Fabiani, Manager for Financial Strategies and Research, as noted above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Release of Transaction Level Report Data and Allocation Tracking System Data Provided by New Markets Tax Credit

(NMTC)Program Allocatees. *Abstract:* The Fund's mission is to expand the capacity of financial institutions to provide credit, capital and financial services to underserved populations and communities in the United States. The Fund's strategic goal is to improve the economic conditions of underserved communities by providing capital and technical assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), capital to insured depository institutions, and tax credit allocations to Community Development Entities (CDEs), which provide credit, capital, financial services, and development services to these markets. The Fund certifies entities as CDFIs and/or CDEs. In June 2004, the Fund launched a new web-based data collection system called the Community Investment Impact System (CIIS). Certified CDFIs, CDFIs that have received monetary awards from the Fund through its other programs, and CDEs that have received NMTC allocations use CIIS to report their annual performance and compliance information to the Fund. The data include institution level information on CDFIs and CDEs including financial condition, staffing, ownership, markets served, loan and investment portfolios, loan sales and purchases, financial services provided, technical assistance and training provided, and community development impacts. For CDEs and a portion of reporting CDFIs, the CIIS data also include detailed transaction level data on each loan or investment in the institutions' portfolios. This transaction level data includes borrower characteristics, loan terms and repayment status, and community development outcomes associated with the transaction, such as jobs created, housing units developed, and square feet of real estate developed. The CIIS database is the only source of standardized transaction level data on CDFI and CDE loans and investments. The Fund has a second reporting system, called the Allocation Tracking System (ATS), that CDEs that have received NMTC allocations (allocatees) use to report on their Qualified Equity Investments (QEIs). Through the ATS, an allocatee reports to the Fund timely information regarding the issuance of QEIs by the allocatee or any of the subsidiary CDEs to which the allocatee transfers its NMTC allocation (i.e., subsidiary allocatees). ATS data include the amount and date of each QEI as well as various investor characteristics, including investor type. The Fund intends to make the Transaction Level Report data and the ATS data available to the public within the parameters of all applicable Federal information protection, privacy and confidentiality laws. The Fund expects that said data could be used by CDFIs, CDEs, funders, investors, researchers and others to gain a better understanding of the community development finance industry. The Fund has developed a draft protocol for releasing the Transaction Level Report data and the ATS data submitted by NMTC allocatees. Because the data contain information on businesses and individuals that may be considered sensitive and/or confidential, the Fund seeks public comment on its draft data release protocol. This draft protocol seeks to release as much data as possible without violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Privacy Act, or other applicable Federal law. To that end, the Fund proposes not to release data that it has determined to be:

(a)Confidential financial or business information of allocatees, investors, or the businesses that allocatees are lending to or investing in, the disclosure of which would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained; or

(b)confidential information about individuals, such as name, address, gender, race, and income. To view the Proposed Data Release Protocol (providing a description of each data field and whether the Fund proposes that the field be displayed, suppressed, or modified in the public release), a sample data release, and definitions of each data point, visit the Fund's Web site *http://www.cdfifund.gov* and click on the links under “Comment Request on the Release of TLR Data and ATS Data Provided by NMTC Program Allocatees.” *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on all aspects of the release of the Transaction Level Report data and ATS data, but commentators may wish to focus particular attention on the following questions:

(a)Are any of the identified data points proposed for release trade secrets or commercial financial information that is privileged or confidential?

(b)Would the release of any such information cause substantial harm to the competitive position of NMTC Program allocatees, allocatees' investors, or the businesses that allocatees are lending to or investing in?

(c)Would the release of any of the data points not currently proposed for release be useful to the public?

(d)Are any of the data points not currently proposed for release, but potentially of interest to the public, trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential? Would the release of any such information cause substantive harm to the competitive position of NMTC Program allocatees, their investors, or the businesses that allocatees are lending to or investing in? Would the release of any such information cause the identity of individuals to be revealed?

(e)Is the proposed Excel spreadsheet format for releasing these data acceptable to a wide range of users? If not, what is a better alternative? Authority: 26 U.S.C. 45D; 31 U.S.C. 321; 26 CFR 1.45D-1T. Dated: August 8, 2006. Arthur A. Garcia, Director, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. [FR Doc. E6-13321 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-70-P U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION Notice of Open Public Hearing AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. ACTION: Notice of open public hearing—August 22, 2006, Washington, DC. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. *Name:* Larry M. Wortzel, Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, evaluate and report to Congress annually on the U.S.-China economic and security relationship. The mandate specifically charges the Commission to investigate “the extent of Chinese access to, and use of United States capital markets, and whether the existing disclosure and transparency rules are adequate to identify Chinese companies which are active in United States markets and are also engaged in proliferation activities or other activities harmful to United States security interests.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on August 22, 2006, to assess the nature and consequences of interaction between the Chinese and U.S. capital markets. China agreed to open its financial system to foreign participation when it joined the World Trade Organization. This process is already underway and accelerating, and the Commission, therefore, believes it is important and timely to assess the nature and consequences of interaction between the Chinese and U.S. capital markets. Background This event is the seventh in a series of public hearings the Commission will hold during its 2006 report cycle to collect input from leading experts in academia, business, industry, government and the public on the impact of the economic and national security implications of the U.S. growing bilateral trade and economic relationship with China. The August 22 hearing is being conducted to obtain commentary about the economic and national security implications of Chinese macroeconomic policies on U.S. capital markets, exchange rates and interest rates. Information on upcoming hearings, as well as transcripts of past Commission hearings, can be obtained from the USCC Web site *http://www.uscc.gov.* This hearing will address “China's Financial System and Monetary Policies: The Impact on U.S. Exchange Rates, Capital Markets, and Interest Rates” and will be Co-chaired by Chairman Larry M. Wortzel and Commissioner Patrick A. Mulloy. Purpose of Hearing At this hearing the Commission seeks to assess the health of the Chinese financial system, evaluate the nature of foreign participation and understand the relationship between China's financial system and domestic Chinese politics. The Commission also seeks to explore the nature of capital flows into and out of China in order to understand how those flows affect U.S. interest rates and the value of the dollar. The hearing is designed to assist the Commission in fulfilling its mandate by examining the condition of China's financial system, its increasing openness to foreign competition as required under WTO rules, China's WTO commitments to the financial sector, and the impact of Chinese macroeconomic policies on U.S. capital markets. Copies of the hearing agenda will be made available on the Commission's Web site *http://www.uscc.gov* . Any interested party may file a written statement by August 22, 2006, by mailing to the contact below. The hearing will be held in two sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, where Commissioners will take testimony from invited witnesses. There will be a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses. Date and Time: Tuesday, August 22, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. A detailed agenda for the hearing will be posted to the Commission's Web site *http://www.uscc.gov* in the near future. ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held on Capitol Hill in Room 385 Russell Senate Office Building. Public seating is limited to about 50 people on a first come, first served basis. Advance reservations are not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the hearing should contact Kathy Michels, Associate Director for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; phone: 202-624-1409, or via E-mail at *kmichels@uscc.gov* . Authority: Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005). Dated: August 9, 2006. Kathleen J. Michels, Associate Director, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. [FR Doc. E6-13303 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1137-00-P U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION Notice of Open Public Hearing AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. ACTION: Notice of open public hearing—September 14, 2006, Washington, DC. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. *Name:* Larry M. Wortzel, Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, evaluate and report to Congress annually on the U.S.-China economic and security relationship. The mandate specifically charges the Commission to “analyze and assess the Chinese role in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

(WMD)and other weapons (including dual-use technologies) to terrorist-sponsoring states, and suggest possible steps which the United States might take, including economic sanctions, to encourage the Chinese to stop such practices.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on September 14, 2006. Background This event is the eighth and final hearing in a series of public hearings the Commission will hold during its 2006 report cycle to collect input from leading experts in academia, business, industry, government and the public on the impact of the economic and national security implications of the U.S. growing bilateral relationship with China. The September 14, 2006, hearing is being conducted to obtain commentary about the economic and national security implications of Chinese proliferation practices and its role in the North Korean and Iranian nuclear program, and the impact of these issues on U.S. security interests. In particular, the hearing will examine China's involvement in the North Korean and Iranian nuclear situations and the role it is, or should be, playing to resolve the current crises. Information on hearings, as well as transcripts of past Commission hearings, can be obtained from the USCC Web site *http://www.uscc.gov.* This hearing will address “China's Proliferation to North Korea and Iran, and Its Role in Addressing the Nuclear and Missile Situations in Both Nations” and will be co-chaired by Commissioners Daniel Blumenthal and William Reinsch. Purpose of Hearing The hearing is designed to assist the Commission in fulfilling its mandate by examining China's proliferation activities, transfers of WMD technology by Chinese entities to Iran, North Korea and other states of concern, and developments in connection with China's role in the Six-Party Talks with North Korea. Copies of the hearing agenda will be made available on the Commission's Web site *http://www.uscc.gov.* Any interested party may file a written statement by September 14, 2006, by mailing to the contact below. The hearing will be held in two sessions, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, where Commissioners will take testimony from invited witnesses. There will be a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses. Date and Time: Thursday, September 14, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. A detailed agenda for the hearing will be posted to the Commission's Web site at *http://www.uscc.gov* in the near future. ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held on Capitol Hill in Room 385 Russell Senate Office Building. Public seating is limited to about 50 people on a first come, first served basis. Advance reservations are not required. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the hearing should contact Kathy Michels, Associate Director for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; phone: 202-624-1409, or via E-mail at *kmichels@uscc.gov* . Authority: Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 106-398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), as amended by Public Law 109-108 (November 22, 2005). Dated: August 9, 2006. Kathleen J. Michels, Associate Director, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. [FR Doc. E6-13304 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1137-00-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0319] Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY OF THE SUBMISSION CONTACT: Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,

(202)565-8374, fax

(202)565-7045 or e-mail: *denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0319.” Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503

(202)395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0319” in any correspondence. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Fiduciary Agreement, VA Form 21-4703. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0319. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 21-4703 is a legal binding contract between VA and Federally appointed fiduciaries receiving VA funds on behalf of beneficiaries who were determined to be incompetent or under legal disability by reason of minority or court action. The form outlines the fiduciary's responsibility regarding the use of VA funds. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published April 06, 2006 at page 17563. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, and State, local or tribal government. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,467 hours. *Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:* 5 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* One time. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 17,600. Dated: August 7, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E6-13291 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0090] Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 14, 2006. For Further Information or a Copy of the Submission Contact: Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,

(202)565-8374, FAX

(202)565-70458 or E-mail to: *denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0090.” Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,

(202)395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0090” in any correspondence. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Application for Voluntary Service, VA Form 10-7055. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0090. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Individuals expressing interest in volunteering at a VA medical center complete VA Form 10-7055 to request placement in the nationwide VA Voluntary Service Program. VA will use the data collected to place applicants in assignments most suitable to their special skills and abilities. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 6, 2006 at pages 17562-17563. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 8,000 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 15 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* One-time. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 32,000. Dated: August 7, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E6-13292 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0518] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to determine a claimant's entitlement to income-dependent benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0518” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or fax

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Income Verification, VA Form 21-0161a. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0518. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 21-0161a is completed by employers of VA beneficiaries who have been identified has having inaccurately reported their income to VA. VA uses the data collected to determine the beneficiary's entitlement to income dependent benefits. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Farms, Federal Government, State, local or tribal government. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 15,000 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 30,000. Dated: August 4, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E6-13294 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-New (22-0803)] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to determine a applicant's eligibility for reimbursement of licensing and certification tests. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-New (22-0803)” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or fax

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Application for Reimbursement of Licensing or Certification Test Fees. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-New (22-0803). *Type of Review:* Existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number. *Abstract:* Claimants complete VA Form 22-0803 to request reimbursement of licensing or certification fees paid. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,590 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Average Burden per Respondents:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 6,361. Dated: August 3, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E6-13295 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0649] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to identify and track veterans diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information to Ann W. Bickoff, Veterans Health Administration (193E1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail *ann.bickoff@.va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0649” in any correspondence. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann W. Bickoff

(202)273-8310 or fax

(202)273-9386. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* VA Cooperative Studies Project #500A, National Registry of Veterans with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), VA Forms 10-21047, 10-21047a, and 10-21047b. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0649. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA will use the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis registry to obtain epidemiological data on veterans affected with ALS and as a mechanism to inform the veteran of clinical drug trials and studies. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,330. *Estimated Average Burden per Respondent:* 30 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* Semi-annually. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,715. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 2,740. Dated: August 2, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E6-13296 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0648] Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY: Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act

(OMB)for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 14, 2006. For Further Information Or A Copy Of The Submission Contact: Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005G2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 8l0 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,

(202)565-8374 or fax

(202)565-7045, or e-mail: *denise.mclamb@mail.va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0648. Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,

(202)395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0648 in any correspondence. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Foreign Medical Program, VA Form 10-7959f-1 and 10-7959f-2. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0648. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* a. Veterans with service connected disabilities living or traveling overseas complete VA Form 10-7959f-1 to enroll in the Foreign Medical Program. b. Healthcare providers complete VA Form 10-7959f-2 to submit claims for payments or reimbursement of expenses relating to veterans living or traveling overseas (except for Canada and the Philippines) with service-connected disability. VA will accept provider's generated billing statement, Uniform Billing-Forms

(UB)92, and Medicare Health Insurance Claims Form, HCFA 1500 for payments or reimbursements. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on June 1, 2006, at pages 31261-31262. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for profit, and not for profit institutions. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 3,763 hours. a. Foreign Medical Program, VA Form 10-7959f-1—111 hours. b. Claim Cover Sheet, VA Form 10-7959-2—3,652 hours *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* a. Foreign Medical Program, VA Form 10-7959f-1—4 minutes. b. Claim Cover Sheet, VA Form 10-7959-2—11 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,320. a. Foreign Medical Program, VA Form 10-7959f-1-1,660. b. Claim Cover Sheet, VA Form 10-7959f-2—1,660. *Estimated Total Annual Responses:* 21,580. a. Foreign Medical Program, VA Form 10-7959 -1—1,660. b. Claim Cover Sheet, VA Form 10-7959-2—19,920. Dated: August 7, 2006. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E6-13297 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P 71 157 Tuesday, August 15, 2006 CORRECTIONS Bob SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Part 404 RIN 0960-AF33 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune System Disorders Corrections In proposed rule document 06-6655 beginning on page 44432 in the issue of Friday, August 4, 2006, make the following corrections: Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404—[Corrected] 1. On page 44452, in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404, in the first full paragraph, in the ninth line, “mm e ” should read “mm 3 ”. 2. On the same page, in the same appendix, in the same paragraph, in the 12th line, “ *alone* ” should read “alone”. 3. On the same page, in the same appendix, in the same paragraph, in the 18th line, “alone ” should read“ *alone* ”. [FR Doc. C6-6655 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D 71 157 Tuesday, August 15, 2006 Proposed Rules Part II Department of Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Part 15 Public Access to HUD Records Under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)and Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD Employees; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 15 [Docket No. FR-5015-P-01] RIN 2501-AD18 Public Access to HUD Records Under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)and Production of Material or Provision of Testimony by HUD Employees AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule is intended to clarify and explain the various types of requests for HUD documents and testimony by HUD employees that are intended to be covered by the Department's document production and testimony approval regulations. This proposed rule describes the procedures to be followed by a party in making a demand for HUD documents and HUD testimony. The proposed rule also explains the standards that are to be followed by HUD in determining whether production of documents or testimony should be permitted and, if so, any conditions or restrictions imposed. DATES: Comment Due Date: October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Office of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments” section. *Electronic Submission of Comments.* Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically. *No Facsimile Comments.* Facsimile

(FAX)comments are not acceptable. In all cases, communications must refer to the docket number and title. *Public Inspection of Public Comments.* All comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available, without charge, for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at

(202)708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Christopher, Associate General Counsel for Litigation, Office of Litigation, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10258, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone

(202)708-0300 (this is not a toll-free telephone number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 15 describe the policies and procedures governing public access to HUD records under the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)(5 U.S.C. 552), and the policies and procedures governing the production of material or provision of testimony by HUD employees, which § 15.2 defines to include all current or former employees who are not employees of the Office of the Inspector General. On January 22, 2001, the Department published a final rule (66 FR 6973) that amended the Department's FOIA regulations and redesignated former subparts H and I of part 15 that deal with the production of documents and provision of testimony by HUD employees, as subparts C and D, respectively. Aside from the designations and conforming amendments to reflect these new designations, no revisions were made to those subparts at that time. HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 15 were amended again on October 23, 2002 (67 FR 65276). That amendment delegated authority to the General Counsel to authorize an employee, upon a show of good cause, to testify as an expert or opinion witness in matters in which the United States is a party, as well as in matters exclusively among non-federal litigants. Prior to this amendment, only the Secretary was authorized to permit expert or opinion testimony. This proposed rule would revise and amend subparts C and D in order to clarify the various types of requests for HUD documents and testimony by HUD employees that are intended to be covered by the regulations in 24 CFR part 15. The proposed rule also describes the procedures to be followed by a party in making a demand to HUD for documents or testimony. The proposed rule also explains the standards that are to be followed by HUD in determining whether production or testimony should be permitted and, if so, any conditions or restrictions imposed. In addition to these changes, the proposed rule would make certain technical corrections in both subparts C and D. As proposed to be amended by this rule, the organization of part 15 would no longer be based on a distinction between production of material and provision of testimony, but rather would be based on the parties involved in the legal proceeding. Subpart C would govern litigation between private parties, while subpart D would govern litigation where one of the parties is the federal government. In order to improve clarity and highlight the processes to be followed, subparts C and D would be revised in their entirety. The following sections of this preamble provide a summary of the existing subparts and a discussion of the proposed changes to 24 CFR part 15, subparts C and D. II. Proposed Changes to 24 CFR Part 15, Subpart C Subpart C of 24 CFR part 15, currently titled “Production in Response to Subpoenas or Demands of Courts or Other Authorities,” was designed to contain HUD's procedures to be followed when a subpoena, order, or other demand of a court or other authority is issued to HUD for the production of material, or the disclosure of information in its possession or the disclosure of information acquired by an employee or former employee as a part of the performance of the employee's official duties or because of his or her official status. The current subpart C prohibits production of material without the prior approval of the Secretary or General Counsel (24 CFR 15.202). Though not expressly referred to in the title of the subpart, subpart C was also intended to address the provision of testimony by HUD employees, and not just the production of material. In addition to the need to clarify the inclusion of demands for testimony, subpart C requires clarification. This clarification is needed because subpart C does not explicitly contain the standards that must be followed in determining:

(1)Whether production of material or provision of testimony should be permitted and

(2)if it is permitted, whether the production or testimony should or will be subject to conditions or restrictions. Furthermore, the current subpart C regulations cross-reference to 24 CFR part 15, subpart I, for the standards to be followed in deciding whether to approve such demands. Under this proposed rule, these standards would instead be found in subpart D. This proposed rule would also make several amendments to subpart C, to clearly set forth the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied by HUD in processing demands for the production of material or provision of testimony in legal proceedings among private litigants. The purpose and scope of the subpart would largely be unchanged and prior approval by the Secretary or the General Counsel would still be required before the release of material or the provision of testimony by HUD employees. This proposed rule would revise the title of subpart C to more clearly describe the scope of the regulations contained in the subpart (the proposed new title would be “Production of material or provision of testimony in response to demands in legal proceedings among private litigants”). The proposed rule would also revise § 15.203 to list, with specificity, the requirements that must be included in a demand to HUD for the production of material or the provision of testimony. Section 15.203 would also be revised to provide that the Associate General Counsel for Litigation or a designee shall be notified immediately of all demands, is to be provided with a copy of the demand, will maintain a record of all demands served upon the Department, and will refer the demand to the appropriate designee for processing and determination. Further, the proposed rule would revise § 15.204 to explain how HUD will consider demands for material or testimony. The Secretary or the General Counsel would have to evaluate demands to determine what material will be produced or testimony provided. The revised regulation will make clear that material or testimony cannot be used for expert or opinion purposes unless authorized by the Secretary or General Counsel for good cause shown. Once a determination is made, the requester will be notified, will be given the underlying reasoning for the decision, and will be apprised of any applicable conditions imposed on the material or testimony provided. The determination by the Secretary constitutes final agency action, meaning administrative appeals of the determination could not be made. In the event that a response to a demand for material or the production of testimony is required before the Secretary renders a determination, the U.S. Attorney or such other attorney as may be designated for the purpose will furnish the court or other authority a copy of HUD's public access to records regulations and respectfully request that the demand be stayed until a prompt determination can be made. If the court or other authority requires compliance, regardless of the fact that the Secretary has not made a determination, or the fact that the Secretary decided either not to respond or decided to respond subject to conditions or restrictions, the employee must choose if so directed by an attorney representing the Department, to respectfully decline to comply with the demand. III. Proposed Changes to 24 CFR Part 15, Subpart D Subpart D of 24 CFR part 15, currently titled “Testimony of Employees in Legal Proceedings,” addresses testimony of HUD employees, including expert or opinion testimony, with respect to material or information contained in the files of the Department, or information learned as part of the performance of their official duties or because of their official status in any legal proceeding. However, subpart D does not expressly list the standards that are followed in determining whether testimony or production should be permitted and subject to what conditions or restrictions, other than an express prohibition against any HUD employee being called to testify as an expert or opinion witness by any party other than the federal government, unless specifically authorized by the Secretary or the General Counsel for good cause shown. This proposed rule would amend Subpart D to set forth and clarify the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied in processing demands for the production of material or provision of testimony in legal proceedings in which the United States is a party. This proposed rule would revise the title of subpart D to more clearly describe the scope of the regulations contained in the subpart (the proposed new title would be “Production of material or provision of testimony in response to demands in legal proceedings in which the United States is a party”). The proposed rule would also revise § 15.302 to provide that demands for production of material or provision of testimony in any legal proceeding in which the United States is a party will be directed to the agency by the attorney representing the United States, after which the Associate General Counsel for Litigation or designee will be internally notified of the demand. Additionally, the blanket authorization of factual testimony would be removed and the determination of what testimony to approve would be made by HUD in consultation with the attorney representing the federal government. The content of § 15.304 has been removed from the regulations because, as a result of the other amendments now being proposed to this part, it would no longer be necessary. The procedures governing legal proceedings among private litigants are set forth in §§ 15.201 through 15.206. IV. Other Proposed Regulatory Changes This proposed rule would also make certain technical corrections to both subparts C and D of 24 CFR part 15. One such technical correction is that the rule would not apply to any legal proceeding in which an employee would testify, not on official time, as to opinions or facts that do not involve covered material or information (i.e., are in no way related to the duties the employee performs for, or to the functions of, the Department). Such legal proceedings are outside the scope of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would also amend § 15.1, which describes the scope of each subpart in part 15, to conform the descriptions of subparts C and D to the proposed regulatory changes. In addition, the proposed rule would revise § 15.2, which contains the definitions for 24 CFR part 15, to set forth the defined terms applicable to revised subparts C and D. V. Findings and Certifications Paperwork Reduction Act The proposed information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Under this Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to include the time for reviewing the instructions, for gathering and preparing the information required to be included in demands, and for completing and reviewing the information to be provided. The following table provides information on the estimated public reporting burden: Information collection Number of respondents Responses per respondent Total annual responses Hours per response Total hours § 15.301 106 1 106 1.5 159 In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)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;

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

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting responses to be submitted electronically). Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this proposal. Under the provisions of 5 CFR 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this collection of information between 30 and 60 days after today's publication date. Therefore, any comment on the information collection requirements is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment within 30 days of today's publication. However, this time frame does not affect the deadline for comments to the agency on the proposed rule. Comments must refer to the proposal by the proposal's name and docket number (FR-5015-P-01) and must be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and Celestine R. Smith, Regulations and Directives Clearance Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-5000. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ), generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and subject to comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulatory amendments that would be made by this proposed rule are procedural. Accordingly, the rule would not have any impact on the substantive rights or duties of small entities requesting HUD records under the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, because the fees charged under this rule are limited by FOIA to direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the records processed for requesters, the fees are not economically significant. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in the preamble to this rule. Environmental Impact This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance, or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ). Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.1531-1538)

(UMRA)establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA. List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 15 Classified information, Courts, Freedom of information, Government employees, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 15 to read as follows: PART 15—PUBLIC ACCESS TO HUD RECORDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION BY HUD EMPLOYEES 1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). 2. Revise § 15.1(b) and

(c)to read as follows: § 15.1 What is the purpose of this part?

(b)*Subpart C of this part* . Subpart C of this part describes the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied in processing demands for the production of material or provision of testimony in legal proceedings among private litigants.

(c)*Subpart D of this part* . Subpart D of this part describes the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied in processing demands for the production of material or provision of testimony in legal proceedings in which the United States is a party. 3. In § 15.2(b) add, in alphabetical order, definitions of the terms “ *Demand,* ” “ *Good cause* ,” “ *Material* ,” “ *Production* ,” “ *Testimony* ,” and “ *United States* ” to read as follows: § 15.2 Definitions. *Demand* means a subpoena, order, or other demand of a court or other authority that is issued in a legal proceeding and any accompanying submissions. *Good cause* means necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to promote a significant interest of the Department. *Material* means either documents or information contained in or relating to contents of the files of the Department or documents or information acquired by any person while such person was an employee of the Department as a part of the performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status. *Production* refers to the provision of material by any means other than through the provision of oral testimony. *Testimony* refers to any oral or written statements made in litigation under oath or penalty of perjury. *United States* refers to the Federal Government of the United States (including the Department), the Secretary, and any employees of the Department in their official capacities. 4. Revise subpart C to read as follows: Subpart C—Production of Material or Provision of Testimony in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings Among Private Litigants Sec. 15.201 Purpose and scope. 15.202 Production of material or provision of testimony prohibited unless approved by the Secretary or General Counsel. 15.203 Making a demand for production of material or provision of testimony. 15.204 Consideration of demands for production of material or provision of testimony. 15.205 Method of production of material or provision of testimony. 15.206 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling regarding production of material or provision of testimony. § 15.201 Purpose and scope.

(a)This subpart contains the regulations of the Department concerning the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied when demand is issued in a legal proceeding among private litigants for the production or disclosure of any material, whether provided through production of material or provision of testimony.

(b)This subpart does not apply to demands, which are covered by part 2004 of this title, for production of material in the files of the Office of Inspector General or provision of testimony by employees within the Office of Inspector General. § 15.202 Production of material or provision of testimony prohibited unless approved by the Secretary or General Counsel. Neither the Department nor any employee of the Department shall comply with any demand for production of material or provision of testimony in a legal proceeding among private litigants, unless the prior approval of the Secretary or General Counsel has been obtained in accordance with this subpart. This rule does not apply to any legal proceeding in which an employee may be called to participate, either through the production of documents or the provision of testimony, not on official time, as to facts or opinions that are in no way related to material described in § 15.201. § 15.203 Making a demand for production of material or provision of testimony.

(a)Any demand made to the Department or an employee of the Department to produce any material or provide any testimony in a legal proceeding among private litigants, must:

(1)Be submitted in writing to the Department or employee of the Department, with a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Litigation, no later than 30 days before the date the material or testimony is required;

(2)State, with particularity, the material or testimony sought;

(3)State whether expert or opinion testimony will be sought from the employee;

(4)State whether the production of such material or provision of such testimony could reveal classified, confidential, or privileged material;

(5)Summarize the need for and relevance of the material or testimony sought in the legal proceeding;

(6)State whether the material or testimony is available from any other source and, if so, state all such other sources;

(7)State why no document[s], or declaration or affidavit, could be used in lieu of oral testimony that is being sought;

(8)Estimate the amount of time the employee will need in order to prepare for, travel to, and attend the legal proceeding, as appropriate;

(9)State why the production of the material or provision of the testimony is appropriate under the rules of procedure governing the legal proceeding for which it is sought ( *e.g.* , not unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the relevant rules governing discovery); and

(10)Describe how producing such material or providing such testimony would affect the interests of the United States.

(b)Whenever a demand is made upon the Department or an employee of the Department for the production of material or provision of testimony, the Associate General Counsel for Litigation or designee shall be notified immediately. The Associate General Counsel for Litigation or designee shall maintain a record of all demands served upon the Department and refer the demand to the appropriate designee for processing and determination. § 15.204 Consideration of demands for production of material or provision of testimony.

(a)The Secretary or General Counsel shall determine what material is to be produced or what testimony is to be provided, based upon the following standards:

(1)*Expert or opinion material or testimony* . In any legal proceeding among private litigants, no employee of the Department may produce material or provide testimony as described in § 15.201 that is of an expert or opinion nature, unless specifically authorized by the Secretary or the General Counsel for good cause shown.

(2)*Factual material or testimony* . In any legal proceeding among private litigants, no employee of the Department may produce material or provide testimony as described in § 15.201 unless specifically authorized by the Secretary or General Counsel. Such authorization may be granted if the Secretary or General Counsel determines that it is warranted based upon an assessment of whether:

(i)Producing such material or providing such testimony would violate a statute or regulation;

(ii)Producing such material or providing such testimony would reveal classified, confidential, or privileged material;

(iii)Such material or testimony is relevant to the legal proceeding;

(iv)Such material or testimony can be obtained from any other source;

(v)One or more documents, or a declaration or affidavit, could reasonably be provided in lieu of oral testimony;

(vi)The amount of employees' time necessary to comply with the demand is reasonable;

(vii)Production of the material or provision of the testimony is appropriate under the rules of procedure governing the legal proceeding for which it is sought ( *e.g.* , unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the relevant rules governing discovery); and

(viii)Producing such material or providing such testimony would impede a significant interest of the United States.

(b)Once a determination has been made, the requester will be notified of the determination, the reasons for the grant or denial of the demand, and any conditions that have been imposed upon the production of the material or provision of the testimony demanded.

(c)The Secretary or General Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the production of any material or provision of any testimony. Such conditions or restrictions may include the following:

(1)A requirement that the parties to the legal proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement, the terms of which must be acceptable to the Secretary or General Counsel, to limit access to, and limit any further disclosure of, material or testimony;

(2)A requirement that the requester accept examination of documentary material on HUD premises in lieu of production of copies;

(3)A limitation on the subject areas of testimony permitted;

(4)A requirement that testimony of a HUD employee be provided by deposition at a location prescribed by HUD or by written declaration or affidavit;

(5)A requirement that the parties to the legal proceeding agree that a transcript of the permitted testimony be kept under seal or will only be used or made available in the particular legal proceeding for which testimony was demanded;

(6)A requirement that the requester provide the Department with a copy of a transcript of the employee's testimony free of charge; or

(7)Any other condition or restriction deemed to be in the best interests of the United States.

(d)The determination made with respect to the production of material or provision of testimony is within the sole discretion of the Secretary or General Counsel and shall constitute final agency action from which no administrative appeal is available. § 15.205 Method of production of material or provision of testimony.

(a)Where the Secretary or General Counsel has authorized the production of material or provision of testimony, the Department shall produce such material or provide such testimony in accordance with this section and any conditions imposed upon production of material or provision of testimony pursuant to § 15.204.

(b)In any legal proceeding where the Secretary or General Counsel has authorized the production of documents, the Department shall respond by producing authenticated copies of the documents, to which the seal of the Department has been affixed, in accordance with its authentication procedures. That authentication shall be evidence that the documents are true copies of documents in the Department's files and be sufficient for the purposes of Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(c)If response to the demand is required before the determination from the Secretary or General Counsel is received, the U.S. Attorney, or such other attorney as may be designated for the purpose, will appear or make such filings as are necessary to furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the regulations contained in this subpart and inform the court or other authority that the demand has been, or is being, as the case may be, referred for prompt consideration. The court or other authority shall be requested respectfully to stay the demand pending receipt of the requested determination from the Secretary or General Counsel. § 15.206 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling regarding production of material or provision of testimony. If the court or other authority declines to stay the demand made in accordance with § 15.205 pending receipt of the determination from the Secretary or General Counsel, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of the determination by the Secretary or General Counsel not to produce the material or provide the testimony demanded or to produce subject to conditions or restrictions, the employee upon whom the demand has been made shall, if so directed by an attorney representing the Department, respectfully decline to comply with the demand. ( *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951)). 5. Revise subpart D to read as follows: Subpart D—Production of Material or Provision of Testimony in Response to Demands in Legal Proceedings in Which the United States is a Party Sec. 15.301 Purpose and scope. 15.302 Procedure for review of demands for production of material or provision of testimony in any legal proceeding in which the United States is a party. 15.303 Consideration of demands for production of material or provision of testimony. 15.304 Method of production of material or provision of testimony. § 15.301 Purpose and scope.

(a)This subpart contains the regulations of the Department concerning the procedures to be followed and standards to be applied when demand is issued in a legal proceeding in which the United States is a party for the production or disclosure of any material, whether provided through production of material or provision of testimony.

(b)This subpart does not apply to demands, which are covered by part 2004 of this title, for production of material in the files of the Office of Inspector General or provision of testimony by employees within the Office of Inspector General. § 15.302 Procedure for review of demands for production of material or provision of testimony in any legal proceeding in which the United States is a party. All demands for production of material or provision of testimony in any legal proceeding in which the United States is a party shall be directed to the agency through the attorney representing the United States in the proceeding. Whenever the Department or an employee of the Department is notified by the attorney representing the United States of the demand for the production of material or provision of testimony in any legal proceeding in which the United States is a party, the Associate General Counsel for Litigation or designee shall be notified immediately. § 15.303 Consideration of demands for production of material or provision of testimony.

(a)The Secretary or General Counsel shall consult with the attorney representing the United States, as to the response to the demand for production of material, or to the provision of testimony.

(b)An employee of the Department may not testify as an expert or opinion witness unless specifically authorized by the Secretary or the General Counsel for good cause shown. § 15.304 Method of production of material or provision of testimony. Where the Secretary or General Counsel has authorized the production of material or provision of testimony, the Associate General Counsel for Litigation or designee shall arrange for the production of any authorized material or provision of any authorized testimony through the attorney representing the United States. Where the Secretary or General Counsel has authorized the production of documents, the Department may respond by producing authenticated copies of the documents, to which the seal of the Department has been affixed in accordance with its authentication procedures. That authentication shall be evidence that the documents are true copies of documents in the Department's files and be sufficient for the purposes of Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Dated: July 12, 2006. Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-6882 Filed 8-14-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

U.S. Code