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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-08-17 · DEPARTMENT OF LABOR · Notices

Notices. Notice

28,184 words·~128 min read·/register/2006/08/17/06-6989

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

BILLING CODE 4410-AR-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)].
This program helps to insure that requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA)is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the collection of administrative and survey data on the Growing America Through Entrepreneurship project 1205-0444, expires December 31, 2006). A copy of the proposed information collection request
(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice or at this Web site: *http://www.doleta.gov/Performance/guidance/OMBControlNumber.cfm.* DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before October 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Jonathan Simonetta, Office of Policy Development and Research, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5637, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210,
(202)693-3911 (this is not a toll-free number); fax: 202-693-2766 (this is not a toll-free number), or e-mail *Simonetta.Jonathan@dol.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Many individuals have the motivation and skills to develop small businesses but lack business expertise and/or access to financing. Recognizing this untapped potential, ETA is teaming with the Small Business Administration
(SBA)to create a demonstration program designed to assist individuals interested in self-employment to develop their businesses—Project GATE (Growing America Through Entrepreneurship). In helping people develop businesses, Project GATE promotes both workforce and economic development. The effectiveness of the program is being evaluated. Entrepreneurial services provided by Project GATE include an assessment, a structured training course, and technical assistance provided by a trained counselor. As part of the technical assistance, counselors assist individuals in need of financing to apply for loans from SBA's Microloan program and other funding sources. DOL's One-Stop Centers conduct Project GATE orientations where interested individuals will be informed about the services available at the One-Stop Center, the benefits and challenges of self-employment and the services offered through Project GATE. Small Business Development Center
(SBDC)counselors conduct individual assessments and identify the most appropriate training course for each Project GATE participant. Existing entrepreneurial training providers in the community provide training and technical assistance. DOL's One-Stop Centers play a central role in recruiting for the project. Interested individuals register for an orientation to Project GATE at One-Stop Centers as well as via telephone, mail, or a Web site. The orientations are held at the One-Stop Centers. Eligibility for Project GATE is broad—it is designed to serve almost anyone interested in starting a business. Special attention is paid, however, to recruiting immigrant populations. Project GATE is being evaluated using an experimental design. Individuals who submit an application for Project GATE in each site and who meet minimal eligibility criteria are randomly assigned to either a program group or a control group. Members of the program group are eligible to receive Project GATE services, while members of the control group are not eligible to receive Project GATE services, although they are not prohibited from receiving self-employment services from other sources. GATE is implemented in seven sites-three urban and four rural sites. The three urban sites are in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The rural sites are one in Minnesota centered around Duluth, and three in Maine centered around Portland, Bangor, and Lewiston. *The evaluation addresses three key questions:* *1. Is Project GATE Viable?* What are the challenges in implementing the program? Does an interagency model for the program work? Who participates in GATE? Is the outreach effective in reaching immigrants? How does the implementation of the program vary across sites? *2. Does the Program Work?* Does the program increase self-employment, increase employment and earnings, and reduce the receipt of unemployment insurance and public assistance? Does the program promote employment and other economic development? Is it effective in both rural and urban areas? Does the effectiveness of the program vary by population subgroup? *Is the Program Cost-Effective?* Do the benefits of the program exceed its costs? Addressing these questions involve conducting process, impact, and benefit-cost analyses. The process evaluation is based on information collected during three rounds of visits to each site, during which detailed information is collected on the implementation of the program from interviews with program staff, observations of services, and focus groups with program participants. Data also is collected using a Participant Tracking System developed specifically for the study. The impact evaluation involves comparing outcomes of members of the program group with outcomes of members of the control group. Data on these outcomes is collected from Unemployment Insurance
(UI)benefit records and quarterly wage records, and two follow-up surveys that occur approximately 6 months and 18 months after random assignment. The benefit-cost analysis involves placing a dollar value on all impacts of the program and comparing them with the dollar value of the costs. II. Review Focus *The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:* • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of ETA, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions This is a notice to extend the collection period that is currently approved by OMB (1205-0444 expires December 31, 2006). The data for the impact analysis comes from UI benefits and wage records in the three states, a computer-based Participant Tracking System developed for the demonstration and used in the seven sites, and follow-up surveys conducted twice with the expected sample of 4,000 individuals who apply for Project GATE. The follow-up surveys, which are the subject of this notice, are conducted by telephone approximately 6 and 18 months following the GATE application. These voluntary surveys collect data unavailable from administrative records. The first survey is designed to collect detailed information about sample members' participation and experiences in receiving self-employment services, their experiences starting a business, their experiences in jobs working for someone else, their receipt of public assistance, and some background data on their socio-economic and demographic characteristics. The second survey is designed to collect their experiences in self-employment and developing small businesses, their experiences in jobs working for someone else, and their income and receipt of public assistance. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration. *Title:* Partnership for Self-Sufficiency: Growing America Through Entrepreneurship (GATE). *OMB Number:* 1205-0444. *Affected Public:* Individuals of households. *Total Respondents:* 400. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 267. Total respondents Frequency Total responses Average time per response (minutes) Burden (hours) GATE 18-month follow-up survey (in 2007) 400 Once 400 40 267 Totals 400 Once 400 40 267 *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost(operating/maintaining):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: August 11, 2006. Maria K. Flynn, Administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research. [FR Doc. E6-13566 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. NRTL1-88] MET Laboratories, Inc., Application for Expansion of Recognition AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the application of MET Laboratories, Inc., for expansion of its recognition to use additional test standards, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this request for expansion. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of this application. DATES: You must submit information or comments, or any request for extension of the time to comment, by the following dates: • *Hard copy:* postmarked or sent by September 1, 2006. • *Electronic transmission or facsimile:* sent by September 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit information or comments to this notice—identified by docket number NRTL1-88—by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *OSHA Web site:* *http://ecomments.osha.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page. • *Fax:* If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. • *Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery and courier service:* Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. NRTL1-88, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627). OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST. *Instructions:* All comments received will be posted without change to *http://dockets.osha.gov,* including any personal information provided. OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dockets.osha.gov.* Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to locate docket submissions. *Extension of Comment Period* : Submit requests for extensions concerning this notice to the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210. Or, fax to
(202)693-1644. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone
(202)693-2110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Application The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)hereby gives notice that MET Laboratories, Inc.
(MET)has applied for expansion of its current recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). MET's expansion request covers the use of additional test standards. OSHA's current scope of recognition for MET may be found in the following informational Web page: *http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/met.html.* OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products “properly certified” 1 by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. 1 Properly certified means, in part, that the product is labeled or marked with the NRTL's “registered” certification mark ( *i.e.* , the mark the NRTL uses for its NRTL work) and that the product certification falls within the scope of recognition of the NRTL. The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the **Federal Register** in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational Web page for each NRTL, which details its scope of recognition. These pages can be accessed from our Web site at *http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.* The most recent notice published by OSHA specifically related to MET's recognition granted an expansion of its NRTL scope, which became effective on December 5, 2005 (70 FR 72470). The current address of the MET facility already recognized by OSHA is: MET Laboratories, Inc., 914 West Patapsco Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21230. General Background on the Application MET has submitted an application, dated August 23, 2005 (see Exhibit 39-1) to expand its recognition to include 10 additional test standards. MET later amended its application through a follow-up request to add 10 more test standards (see Exhibit 39-2). The NRTL Program staff has determined that each of these 20 standards is an “appropriate test standard” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). However, one standard is already included in MET's scope. Therefore, OSHA would approve 19 test standards for the expansion. MET seeks recognition for testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standards: UL 82 Electric Gardening Appliances UL 234 Low Voltage Lighting Fixtures for Use in Recreational Vehicles UL 298 Portable Electric Hand Lamps UL 588 Seasonal and Holiday Decorative Products UL 867 Electrostatic Air Cleaners UL 917 Clock-Operated Switches UL 987 Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools UL 1081 Swimming Pool Pumps, Filters, and Chlorinators UL1090 Electric Snow Movers UL 1363 Relocatable Power Taps UL 1447 Electric Lawn Mowers UL 1448 Electrical Hedge Trimmers UL 1450 Motor-Operated Air Compressors, Vacuum Pumps, and Painting Equipment UL 1559 Insect-Control Equipment—Electrocution Type UL 1563 Electric Spas, Equipment Assemblies, and Associated Equipment UL 1662 Electric Chain Saws UL 1776 High-Pressure Cleaning Machines UL 1994 Luminous Egress Path Marking Systems UL 2089 Vehicle Battery Adapters OSHA's scope of recognition of MET, or any NRTL, for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials ( *i.e.* , products) for which OSHA requires third-party testing and certification before use in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any product(s) for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that product(s). Many UL test standards are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under our policy, any NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard. You may contact ANSI to find out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved. Preliminary Finding on the Application MET has submitted an acceptable request for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. In connection with this request, OSHA did not perform an on-site review of MET's NRTL testing facilities. However, NRTL Program assessment staff reviewed information pertinent to the request and recommended that MET's recognition be expanded to include the additional test standards listed above (see Exhibit 39-3). Our review of the application file, the assessor's recommendation, and other pertinent documents indicate that MET can meet the requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for expansion of its scope to include the additional test standards listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application. OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether MET has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Should you need more time to comment, you must request it in writing, including reasons for the request. OSHA must receive your written request for extension at the address provided above no later than the last date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days, unless the requester justifies a longer period. We may deny a request for extension if it is not adequately justified. You may obtain or review copies of MET's requests, the on-site review report, other pertinent documents, and all submitted comments, as received, by contacting the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. Docket No. NRTL1-88 contains all materials in the record concerning MET's application. The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant MET's expansion request. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the expansion and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR Section 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the **Federal Register** . Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of August, 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13549 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. NRTL1-98] National Technical Systems, Inc.; Application for Renewal of Recognition AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the application of National Technical Systems, Inc.,
(NTS)for renewal of its recognition, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this request. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the renewal application. DATES: You must submit information or comments, or any request for extension of the time to comment, by the following dates: • *Hard copy:* postmarked or sent by September 1, 2006. • *Electronic transmission or facsimile:* sent by September 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit information or comments to this notice—identified by docket number NRTL1-98—by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *OSHA Web site:* *http://ecomments.osha.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page. • *Fax:* If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. • *Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery and courier service:* Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. NRTL1-98, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627). OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST. *Instructions:* All comments received will be posted without change to *http://dockets.osha.gov* , including any personal information provided. OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dockets.osha.gov.* Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to locate docket submissions. *Extension of Comment Period:* Submit requests for extensions concerning this notice to the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210. or, fax to
(202)693-1644. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone
(202)693-2110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Renewal Application The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)hereby gives notice that National Technical Systems, Inc.,
(NTS)has applied for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). The NTS renewal request covers its existing scope of recognition. OSHA's current scope of recognition for NTS may be found in the following informational Web page: *http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/ nts.html.* OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products “properly certified” 1 by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. 1 Properly certified means, in part, that the product is labeled or marked with the NRTL's “registered” certification mark ( *i.e.,* the mark the NRTL uses for its NRTL work) and that the product certification falls within the scope of recognition of the NRTL. The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the **Federal Register** in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational Web page for each NRTL, which details its scope of recognition. These pages can be accessed from our Web site at *http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.* The most recent notice published by OSHA specifically related to the NTS recognition granted its NRTL status, which became effective as noted below. However, OSHA issued a notice to modify the scope of a number of NRTLs to replace or delete withdrawn test standards (70 FR 11273, March 8, 2005). NTS was one of those NRTLs. The current address of the NTS facility already recognized by OSHA is: National Technical Systems, Inc., 1146 Massachusetts Avenue, Boxborough, MA 01719. General Background on the Renewal Application National Technical Systems, Inc.,
(NTS)initially received OSHA recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory on December 10, 1998 (63 FR 68306) for a five-year period ending on December 10, 2003. Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 stipulates that the period of recognition of an NRTL is five years and that an NRTL may renew its recognition by applying not less than nine months, nor more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. NRTLs submitting requests within this allotted time period retain their recognition during OSHA's renewal process. NTS has submitted a request, dated February 13, 2003 (see Exhibit 7), to renew its recognition, within the allotted time period, and retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. In connection with the renewal, OSHA staff performed an on-site visit of the NRTL's site in January 2005. Based on this visit, the staff recommended renewal of the NTS recognition in the on-site review report dated July 22, 2005 (see Exhibit 7-1). The NTS existing scope of recognition consists of the facility listed above, and the test standards and supplemental programs listed below. OSHA deferred processing of the renewal request due to certain changes the NRTL considered making to its operations, but processing of the request also has been delayed through no fault of the NRTL. NTS seeks renewal of its recognition for the one site that OSHA currently includes within the NRTL's scope. NTS also seeks renewal of its recognition for continued testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standards. UL 484 Room Air Conditioners UL 489 Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures UL 499 Electric Heating Appliances UL 544 Medical and Dental Equipment UL 1012 Power Units Other Than Class 2 UL 1778 Uninterruptible Power Systems UL 1863 Communications-Circuit Accessories UL 1995 Heating and Cooling Equipment UL 60601-1 Medical Electrical Equipment, Part 1: General Requirements for Safety UL 60950 Information Technology Equipment—Safety—Part 1: General Requirements UL 61010A-1 Electrical Equipment For Laboratory Use; Part 1: General Requirements UL 61010B-1 Electrical Measuring and Test Equipment; Part 1: General Requirements The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice. OSHA's recognition of NTS, or any NRTL, for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials ( *i.e.* , products) for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before use in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any product(s) for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that product(s). Many UL test standards also are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under our procedures, any NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard. You may contact ANSI to find out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved. Programs and Procedures The renewal would include continued use by NTS of supplemental programs 4, 8, and 9. *Program 4:* Acceptance of witnessed testing data. *Program 8:* Acceptance of product evaluations from organizations that function as part of the International Electrical Commission Certification Body (IEC-CB) Scheme. *Program 9:* Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation performed by subcontractors or agents. In developing these programs, OSHA responded to industry requests and allowed certain of their ongoing practices to continue but in a manner controlled by OSHA criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, these programs help to define the scope of that recognition. Preliminary Finding on the Renewal NTS has submitted an acceptable request for renewal of its recognition as an NRTL. Our review of the application file, the on-site review report, and other pertinent documents, indicates that NTS can meet the requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for the renewal of the one site and the test standards and programs listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application. OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether NTS has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for the renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Should you need more time to comment, you must request it in writing, including reasons for the request. OSHA must receive your written request for extension at the address provided above no later than the last date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days, unless the requester justifies a longer period. We may deny a request for extension if it is not adequately justified. You may obtain or review copies of the NTS request, the on-site review report, and all submitted comments, as received, by contacting the Docket Office, Room N2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. Docket No. NRTL1-98 contains all materials in the record concerning the NTS application. The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant the NTS renewal request. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the renewal and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the **Federal Register** . Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of August, 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13542 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. NRTL1-93] Wyle Laboratories, Inc.; Application for Renewal of Recognition AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the application of Wyle Laboratories, Inc.
(WL)for renewal of its recognition and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this request for renewal. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the renewal application. DATES: You must submit information or comments, or any request for extension of the time to comment, by the following dates: • *Hard copy:* postmarked or sent by September 1, 2006. • *Electronic transmission or facsimile:* sent by September 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit information or comments to this notice—identified by docket number NRTL1-93—by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *OSHA Web site: http://ecomments.osha.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page. • *Fax:* If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. • *Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery and courier service:* Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. NRTL1-93, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627). OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST. *Instructions:* All comments received will be posted without change to *http://dockets.osha.gov,* including any personal information provided. OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dockets.osha.gov.* Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to locate docket submissions. *Extension of Comment Period:* Submit requests for extensions concerning this notice to the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210. Or fax to
(202)693-1644. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone
(202)693-2110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Renewal Application The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)hereby gives notice that Wyle Laboratories, Inc.
(WL)has applied for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). The WL renewal request covers its existing scope of recognition, except as noted below. OSHA's current scope of recognition for WL may be found in the following informational Web page: *http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/wl.html.* OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products “properly certified” 1 by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. 1 Properly certified means, in part, that the product is labeled or marked with the NRTL's “registered” certification mark ( *i.e.* , the mark the NRTL uses for its NRTL work) and that the product certification falls within the scope of recognition of the NRTL. The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the **Federal Register** in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational Web page for each NRTL, which details its scope of recognition. These pages can be accessed from our Web site at *http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.* The most recent notice published by OSHA specifically related to WL recognition granted renewal of its NRTL status, which became effective as noted below. However, OSHA issued a notice to modify the scope of a number of NRTLs to replace or delete withdrawn test standards (70 FR 11273, March 8, 2005). WL was one of those NRTLs. The current address of the WL facility already recognized by OSHA is: Wyle Laboratories, Inc., 7800 Highway 20 West, P.O. Box 077777, Huntsville, AL 35807. General Background on the Renewal Application Wyle Laboratories, Inc.
(WL)initially received OSHA recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory on July 22, 1994 (59 FR 37509) for a five-year period ending on July 22, 1999. Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 stipulates that the period of recognition of an NRTL is five years and that an NRTL may renew its recognition by applying not less than nine months, nor more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. NRTLs submitting requests within this allotted time period retain their recognition during OSHA's renewal process. WL submitted the required request and received its first renewal of recognition on June 28, 2000 (65 FR 39949), for the five-year period ending June 28, 2005. Wyle has submitted a request dated September 17, 2004 (see Exhibit 19-1) to renew its recognition again. This request falls within the allotted time period, and Wyle retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. WL later amended its request to delete certain test standards from its scope (see Exhibit 19-2), which have not been included in the listing of test standards shown below. In connection with the renewal, OSHA staff performed an on-site visit of the NRTL's site in February 2005. Based upon the on-site visit, the assessor recommended renewal of the WL recognition in a memo dated February 1, 2006 (see Exhibit 19-3). Processing of the renewal request has been delayed through no fault of the NRTL. WL seeks renewal of its recognition for the one site that OSHA currently includes within the NRTL's scope. WL also seeks renewal of its recognition for continued testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following test standards: UL 8 Water Based Agent Fire Extinguishers UL 20 General-Use Snap Switches UL 22 Amusement and Gaming Machines UL 44 Thermoset-Insulated Wires and Cables UL 45 Portable Electric Tools UL 48 Electric Signs UL 62 Flexible Cord and Fixture Wire UL 65 Wired Cabinets UL 67 Panelboards UL 73 Motor-Operated Appliances UL 83 Thermoplastic-Insulated Wires and Cables UL 92 Fire Extinguisher and Booster Hose UL 98 Enclosed and Dead-Front Switches UL 153 Portable Electric Luminaires UL 154 Carbon-Dioxide Fire Extinguishers UL 187 X-Ray Equipment UL 244A Solid-State Controls for Appliances UL 299 Dry Chemical Fire Extinguishers UL 363 Knife Switches UL 393 Indicating Pressure Gauges for Fire-Protection Service UL 429 Electrically Operated Valves UL 444 Communications Cables UL 466 Electric Scales UL 467 Grounding and Bonding Equipment UL 484 Room Air Conditioners UL 486B Wire Connectors UL 486C Splicing Wire Connectors UL 486D Sealed Wire Connector Systems UL 489 Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures UL 497A Secondary Protectors for Communications Circuits UL 498 Attachment Plugs and Receptacles UL 499 Electric Heating Appliances UL 506 Specialty Transformers UL 507 Electric Fans UL 508 Industrial Control Equipment UL 510 Polyvinyl Chloride, Polyethylene and Rubber Insulating Tape UL 512 Fuseholders UL 539 Single and Multiple Station Heat Alarms UL 541 Refrigerated Vending Machines UL 544 Medical and Dental Equipment UL 626 Water Fire Extinguishers UL 711 Rating and Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishers UL 745-1 Portable Electric Tools UL 745-2-1 Particular Requirements of Drills UL 745-2-2 Particular Requirements for Screwdrivers and Impact Wrenches UL 745-2-3 Particular Requirements for Grinders, Polishers, and Disk-Type Sanders UL 745-2-4 Particular Requirements for Sanders UL 745-2-5 Particular Requirements for Circular Saws and Circular Knives UL 745-2-6 Particular Requirements for Hammers UL 745-2-8 Particular Requirements for Shears and Nibblers UL 745-2-9 Particular Requirements for Tappers UL 745-2-11 Particular Requirements for Reciprocating Saws UL 745-2-12 Particular Requirements for Concrete Vibrators UL 745-2-14 Particular Requirements for Planers UL 745-2-17 Particular Requirements for Routers and Trimmers UL 745-2-30 Particular Requirements for Staplers UL 745-2-31 Particular Requirements for Diamond Core Drills UL 745-2-32 Particular Requirements for Magnetic Drill Presses UL 745-2-33 Particular Requirements for Portable Bandsaws UL 745-2-34 Particular Requirements for Strapping Tools UL 745-2-35 Particular Requirements for Drain Cleaners UL 745-2-36 Particular Requirements for Hand Motor Tools UL 745-2-37 Particular Requirements for Plate Jointers UL 796 Printed-Wiring Boards UL 813 Commercial Audio Equipment UL 817 Cord Sets and Power-Supply Cords UL 845 Motor Control Centers UL 854 Service-Entrance Cables UL 863 Time-Indicating and -Recording Appliances UL 916 Energy Management Equipment UL 917 Clock-Operated Switches UL 924 Emergency Lighting and Power Equipment UL 943 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupters UL 961 Electric Hobby and Sports Equipment UL 977 Fused Power-Circuit Devices UL 998 Humidifiers UL 1004 Electric Motors UL 1008 Transfer Switch Equipment UL 1012 Power Units Other Than Class 2 UL 1018 Electric Aquarium Equipment UL 1022 Line Isolation Monitors UL 1028 Hair Clipping and Shaving Appliances UL 1047 Isolated Power Systems Equipment UL 1053 Ground-Fault Sensing and Relaying Equipment UL 1054 Special-Use Switches UL 1058 Halogenated Agent Extinguishing System Units UL 1059 Terminal Blocks UL 1066 Low-Voltage AC and DC Power Circuit Breakers Used in Enclosures UL 1069 Hospital Signaling and Nurse-Call Equipment UL 1077 Supplementary Protectors for Use in Electrical Equipment UL 1091 Butterfly Valves for Fire-Protection Service UL 1093 Halogenated Agent Fire Extinguishers UL 1097 Double Insulation Systems for Use in Electrical Equipment UL 1236 Battery Chargers for Charging Engine-Starter Batteries UL 1244 Electrical and Electronic Measuring and Testing Equipment UL 1254 Pre-Engineered Dry Chemical Extinguishing System Units UL 1283 Electromagnetic Interference Filters UL 1310 Class 2 Power Units UL 1411 Transformers and Motor Transformers for Use in Audio-, Radio-, and Television-Type Appliances UL 1412 Fusing Resistors and Temperature-Limited Resistors for Radio- and Television-Type Appliances UL 1416 Overcurrent and Overtemperature Protectors for Radio- and Television-Type Appliances UL 1424 Cables for Power-Limited Fire-Alarm Circuits UL 1429 Pullout Switches UL 1437 Electrical Analog Instruments—Panel Board Types UL 1449 Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors UL 1474 Adjustable Drop Nipples for Sprinkler Systems UL 1481 Power Supplies for Fire-Protective Signaling Systems UL 1486 Quick Opening Devices for Dry Pipe Valves for Fire-Protection Service UL 1557 Electrically Isolated Semiconductor Devices UL 1564 Industrial Battery Chargers UL 1577 Optical Isolators UL 1585 Class 2 and Class 3 Transformers UL 1598 Luminaires UL 1664 Immersion-Detection Circuit-Interrupters UL 1673 Electric Space Heating Cables UL 1682 Plugs, Receptacles, and Cable Connectors of the Pin and Sleeve Type UL 1778 Uninterruptible Power Systems UL 1863 Communications-Circuit Accessories UL 1876 Isolating Signal and Feedback Transformers for Use in Electronic Equipment UL 1995 Heating and Cooling Equipment UL 2006 Halon 1211 Recovery/Recharge Equipment UL 2111 Overheating Protection for Motors UL 60950 Information Technology Equipment UL 61010A-1 Electrical Equipment For Laboratory Use; Part 1: General Requirements * * This standard is not presently in WL's scope of recognition but is comparable to UL 1262 Laboratory Equipment, which is in WL's scope but has been withdrawn by the standards developing organization. OSHA must delete a withdrawn standard from the scope of recognition of any NRTL because, once it has been withdrawn, a standard no longer meets the requirements for an “appropriate test standard” under 29 CFR 1910.7(c). In such cases, OSHA NRTL Program policy permits NRTLs to request, or OSHA to provide, recognition for comparable test standards, *i.e.* , other appropriate test standards covering comparable product testing. In this notice, OSHA has deleted UL 1262 from the list above and added UL 61010A-1, in accordance with this policy. In the final notice for WL's expansion, OSHA would not only formally delete UL 1262 from the scope of recognition of WL but also from the scope of any other NRTL still recognized for this standard. OSHA would also add UL 61010A-1 to the scope of those NRTLs and to WL's scope. UL 61010B-1 Electrical Measuring and Test Equipment; Part 1: General Requirements The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice. OSHA's recognition of WL, or any NRTL, for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials ( *i.e.* , products) for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before use in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any product(s) for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that product(s). Many UL test standards also are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under our procedures, any NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard. You may contact ANSI to find out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved. Programs and Procedures The renewal would include continued use by WL of the following supplemental programs, all of which are currently in its scope. *Program 2:* Acceptance of testing data from independent organizations, other than NRTLs. *Program 3:* Acceptance of product evaluations from independent organizations, other than NRTLs. *Program 4:* Acceptance of witnessed testing data. *Program 5:* Acceptance of testing data from non-independent organizations. *Program 6:* Acceptance of evaluation data from non-independent organizations (requiring NRTL review prior to marketing). *Program 7:* Acceptance of continued certification following minor modifications by the client. *Program 8:* Acceptance of product evaluations from organizations that function as part of the International Electrotechnical Commission Certification Body (IEC-CB) Scheme. *Program 9:* Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation performed by subcontractors or agents. In developing these programs, OSHA responded to industry requests and allowed certain of their ongoing practices to continue but in a manner controlled by OSHA criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, these programs help to define the scope of that recognition. Preliminary Finding on the Renewal WL has submitted an acceptable request for renewal of its recognition as an NRTL. Our review of the application file, the assessor's memo, and other pertinent documents, indicates that WL can meet the requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for the renewal of the one site and the test standards and programs listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application. OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether WL has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for the renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Should you need more time to comment, you must request it in writing, including reasons for the request. OSHA must receive your written request for extension at the address provided above no later than the last date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days, unless the requester justifies a longer period. We may deny a request for extension if it is not adequately justified. You may obtain or review copies of the Wyle request, the on-site review report, other pertinent documents, and all submitted comments, as received, by contacting the Docket Office, Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. Docket No. NRTL1-93 contains all materials in the record concerning the WL application. The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant the WL renewal request. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the renewal and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the **Federal Register** . Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of August, 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13543 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION [MCC FR 06-12] Report on Countries That Are Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility in Fiscal Year 2007 and Countries That Would Be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Section 608(d) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 requires the Millennium Challenge Corporation to publish a report that identifies countries that are “candidate countries” for Millennium Challenge Account assistance during FY 2007. The report is set forth in full below. Report on Countries That Are Candidates for Millennium Challenge Account Eligibility for Fiscal Year 2007 and Countries That Would Be Candidates but for Legal Prohibitions This report to Congress is provided in accordance with Section 608(a) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, 22 U.S.C. 7701, 7707
(a)(“Act”). The Act authorizes the provision of Millennium Challenge Account (“MCA”) assistance to countries that enter into Compacts with the United States to support policies and programs that advance the progress of such countries achieving lasting economic growth and poverty reduction. The Act requires Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) to take a number of steps in determining the countries that, based on their demonstrated commitment to just and democratic governance, economic freedom and investing in their people and the opportunity to reduce poverty and generate economic growth in the country, will be eligible for MCA assistance for Fiscal Year
(FY)2007. These steps include the submission of reports to the congressional committees specified in the Act and the publication of notices in the **Federal Register** that identify: 1. The countries that are “candidate countries” for MCA assistance for FY 2007 based on their per-capita income levels and their eligibility to receive assistance under U.S. law and countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance (Section 608(a) of the Act); 2. The criteria and methodology that the MCC Board of Directors (“Board”) will use to measure and evaluate the relative policy performance of the “candidate countries” consistent with the requirements of subsections
(a)and
(b)of Section 607 of the Act in order to select “MCA eligible countries” from among the “candidate countries” (Section 608(b) of the Act); and 3. The list of countries determined by the Board to be “MCA eligible countries” for FY 2007, with a justification for such eligibility determination and selection for Compact negotiation, including which of the MCA eligible countries the Board will seek to enter into MCA Compacts (Section 608(d) of the Act). This report is the first of three required reports listed above. Candidate Countries for FY 2007 The Act requires the identification of all countries that are candidates for MCA assistance for FY 2007 and the identification of all countries that would be candidate countries but for specified legal prohibitions on assistance. Sections 606(a) and
(b)of the Act provide that for FY 2007 a country shall be a candidate for the MCA if it: • Meets one of the following two income level tests: ○ Has a per capita income equal to or less than the historical ceiling of the International Development Association eligibility for the fiscal year involved (or $1,675 gross national income
(GNI)per capita for FY 2007) (the “low income category”); or ○ Is classified as a lower middle income country in the then most recent edition of the World Development Report for Reconstruction and Development published by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and has an income greater than the historical ceiling for International Development Association eligibility for the fiscal year involved (or $1,676 to $3,465 GNI per capita for FY 2007) (the “lower middle income category”); and • Is not ineligible to receive U.S. economic assistance under Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, (“Foreign Assistance Act”), by reason of the application of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law. Pursuant to Section 606(c) of the Act, the Board has identified the following countries as candidate countries under the Act for FY 2007. In so doing, the Board has anticipated that prohibitions against assistance as applied to countries in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-102) (FY 2006 FOAA) will again apply for FY 2007, even though the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY 2007 has not yet been enacted and certain findings under other statutes have not yet been made. As noted below, MCC will provide any required updates on subsequent changes in applicable legislation or other circumstances that affects the status of any country as a candidate country for FY 2007. Candidate Countries: Low Income Category 1. Afghanistan 2. Angola 3. Armenia 4. Azerbaijan 5. Bangladesh 6. Benin 7. Bhutan 8. Bolivia 9. Burkina Faso 10. Burundi 11. Cameroon 12. Central African Republic 13. Chad 14. Comoros 15. Congo, Democratic Republic of the 16. Congo, Republic of the 17. Djibouti 18. East Timor 19. Egypt 20. Eritrea 21. Ethiopia 22. Gambia, The 23. Georgia 24. Ghana 25. Guinea 26. Guinea-Bissau 27. Guyana 28. Haiti 29. Honduras 30. India 31. Indonesia 32. Iraq 33. Kenya 34. Kiribati 35. Kyrgyzstan 36. Laos 37. Lesotho 38. Liberia 39. Madagascar 40. Malawi 41. Mali 42. Mauritania 43. Moldova 44. Mongolia 45. Mozambique 46. Nepal 47. Nicaragua 48. Niger 49. Nigeria 50. Pakistan 51. Papua New Guinea 52. Paraguay 53. Philippines 54. Rwanda 55. Sao Tome and Principe 56. Senegal 57. Sierra Leone 58. Solomon Islands 59. Sri Lanka 60. Tajikistan 61. Tanzania 62. Togo 63. Turkmenistan 64. Uganda 65. Ukraine 66. Vanuatu 67. Vietnam 68. Yemen 69. Zambia Candidate Countries: Lower Middle Income Category 1. Albania 2. Algeria 3. Belarus 4. Brazil 5. Bulgaria 6. Cape Verde 7. Colombia 8. Dominican Republic 9. Ecuador 10. El Salvador 11. Fiji Islands 12. Guatemala 13. Jamaica 14. Jordan 15. Kazakhstan 16. Macedonia 17. Maldives 18. Marshall Islands 19. Micronesia, Federated States of 20. Montenegro 21. Morocco 22. Namibia 23. Peru 24. Samoa 25. Suriname 26. Swaziland 27. Thailand 28. Tonga 29. Tunisia 30. Tuvalu Countries That Would Be Candidate Countries but for Legal Prohibitions That Prohibit Assistance Countries that would be considered candidate countries for FY 2007, but are ineligible to receive United States economic assistance under Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of the application of any provision of the Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law are listed below. As noted above, this list is based on legal prohibitions against economic assistance that apply for FY 2006 and that are anticipated to apply again for FY 2007. Prohibited Countries: Low Income Category 1. Burma is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to Section 570 of the FY 1997 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 104-208) which prohibits assistance to the government of Burma until it makes progress on improving human rights and implementing democratic government, and due to its status as a major drug-transit or major illicit drug producing country for 2005 (Presidential Determination No. 2005-36 (9/15/2005)) and a Tier III country under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (Presidential Determination No. 2005-37 (9/21/2005)). 2. Cambodia's central government is subject to Section 554 of the FY 2006 FOAA. 3. The Cote d'Ivoire is subject to Section 508 of the FY 2006 FOAA which prohibits assistance to the government of a country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by decree or military coup. 4. Cuba is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits assistance to governments supporting international terrorism, provisions of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (PL 104-114), and Section 507 of the FY 2006 FOAA. 5. North Korea is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits assistance to governments supporting international terrorism and Section 507 of the FY 2006 FOAA. 6. Somalia is subject to Section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act and Section 512 of the FY 2006 FOAA, which prohibit assistance to countries in default in payment to the U.S. in certain circumstances. 7. Sudan is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits assistance to governments supporting international terrorism, Section 512 of the FY 2006 FOAA and Section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibit assistance to countries in default in payment to the U.S. in certain circumstances, Section 508 of the FY 2006 FOAA which prohibits assistance to a country whose duly elected head of government being deposed by military coup or decree, and Section 569 of the FY2006 FOAA. 8. Syria is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits assistance to governments supporting international terrorism, Section 507 of the FY 2006 FOAA, and Section 512 of the FY 2006 FOAA and Section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibit assistance to countries in default in payment to the U.S. in certain circumstances. 9. Uzbekistan's central government is subject to Section 586 of the FY 2006 FOAA, which requires that funds appropriated for assistance to the central government of Uzbekistan may be made available only if the Secretary of State determines and reports to the Congress that the government is making substantial and continuing progress in meeting its commitments under a framework agreement with the United States. 10. Zimbabwe is subject to Section 620(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act and Section 512 of the FY 2006 FOAA which prohibit assistance to countries in default in payment to the United States in certain circumstances. Prohibited Countries: Lower Middle Income Category 1. Republika Srpska, which is part of the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is subject to Section 561 of the FY 2006 FOAA, which prohibits assistance to any country, entity, or municipality whose competent authorities have failed, as determined by the Secretary of State, to take necessary and significant steps to implement its international legal obligations with respect to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. 2. China, according to the Department of State, is not eligible to receive economic assistance from the United States, absent special authority, because of concerns relative to China's record on human rights. 3. Iran is subject to numerous restrictions, including but not limited to Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits assistance to governments supporting international terrorism and Section 507 of the FY 2006 FOAA. 4. Serbia is subject to Section 561 of the FY 2006 FOAA, which prohibits assistance to any country, entity, or municipality whose competent authorities have failed, as determined by the Secretary of State, to take necessary and significant steps to implement its international legal obligations with respect to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In addition, Section 563 of the FY 2006 FOAA restricts certain assistance for the central Government of Serbia if the Secretary does not make a certification regarding, among other things, cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Countries identified above as candidate countries, as well as countries that would be considered candidate countries but for the applicability of legal provisions that prohibit U.S. economic assistance, may be the subject of future statutory restrictions or determinations, or changed country circumstances, that affect their legal eligibility for assistance under Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act by reason of application of Foreign Assistance Act or any other provision of law for FY 2007. MCC will include any required updates on such statutory eligibility that affect countries' identification as candidate countries for FY 2007, at such time as it publishes the Notices required by Sections 608(b) and 608(d) of the Act or at other appropriate times. Any such updates with regard to the legal eligibility or ineligibility of particular countries identified in this report will not affect the date on which the Board is authorized to determine eligible countries from among candidate countries which, in accordance with Section 608(a) of the Act, shall be no sooner than 90 days from the date of publication of this report. Dated: August 11, 2006. Maura E. Griffin, Vice President & General Counsel (Acting), Millennium Challenge Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-13545 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9210-01-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Humanities; Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons AGENCY: National Endowment for the Humanities, NFAH. ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance. SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH)publishes for public comment proposed policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 18, 2006. NEH will review all comments and will determine what modifications, if any, to this policy guidance are necessary. ADDRESSES: Interested persons should submit written comments to Office of the General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at 202-606-8600 or by e-mail at *gencounsel@neh.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Gottry at the above address or by telephone at 202-606-8322; TDD: 202-606-8282. Arrangements to receive the policy in an alternative format may be made by contacting the named individual. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under NEH regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, *et seq.* (Title VI), recipients of Federal financial assistance from the NEH (recipients) have a responsibility to ensure meaningful access by persons with limited English proficiency
(LEP)to their programs and activities. See 45 CFR Part 1170. Executive Order 13166, reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each Federal agency that extends assistance subject to the requirements of Title VI to publish, after review and approval by the Department of Justice, guidance for its recipients clarifying that obligation. The Executive Order also directs that all such guidance be consistent with the compliance standards and framework detailed in DOJ Policy Guidance entitled “Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—National Origin Discrimination Against Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” See 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000). On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)issued a Report To Congress titled “Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” Among other things, the Report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across all Federal agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each agency's specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation, the Department of Justice
(DOJ)published LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients which was drafted and organized to also function as a model for similar guidance by other Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). The proposed guidance is based upon and incorporates the legal analysis and compliance standards of the model June 18, 2002, DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients. It has been determined that the guidance does not constitute a regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It has also been determined that this guidance is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866. The text of the complete proposed guidance document appears below. Dated: August 11, 2006. Heather C. Gottry, Acting General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities. I. Introduction Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak and understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom English is not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000 census, over 26 million individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 million individuals speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home. If these individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English, they are limited English proficient, or “LEP.” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, *et seq.* and its implementing regulations provide that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. Language for LEP individuals can be a barrier to accessing important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding other information provided by Federally funded programs and activities. In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from Federally assisted programs and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d and Title VI regulations against national origin discrimination. The purpose of this policy guidance is to clarify the responsibilities of recipients of Federal financial assistance from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient
(LEP)persons pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the NEH implementing regulations. The policy guidance reiterates NEH's longstanding position that, in order to avoid discrimination against LEP persons on the grounds of national origin, recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure that such persons have meaningful access to the programs, services, and information those recipients provide. This policy guidance is modeled on and incorporates the legal analysis and compliance standards and framework set out in Section I through Section VIII of Department of Justice
(DOJ)Policy Guidance titled “Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons,” published at 67 FR 41455, 41457-41465 (June 18, 2002) (DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). To the extent additional clarification is desired on the obligation under Title VI to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons and how recipients can satisfy that obligation, a recipient should consult the more detailed discussion of the applicable compliance standards and relevant factors set out in DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance. The DOJ Guidance may be viewed and downloaded at *http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/lep/DOJFinLEPFRJun182002.htm* or at *http://www.lep.gov.* In addition, NEH recipients also receiving Federal financial assistance from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Education or the National Endowment for the Arts, should review those agencies' guidance documents at *http://www.lep.gov* for a more focused explanation of how they can comply with their Title VI and regulatory obligations in the context of similar Federally assisted programs or activities. Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of *Alexander* v. *Sandoval* , 532 U.S. 275 (2001), as impliedly striking down the regulations promulgated under Title VI that form the basis for the part of Executive Order 13166 that applies to Federally assisted programs and activities. The NEH and the Department of Justice have taken the position that this is not the case, and will continue to do so. Accordingly, we will strive to ensure that Federally assisted programs and activities work in a way that is effective for all eligible beneficiaries, including those with limited English proficiency. II. Purpose and Application This policy guidance provides a legal framework to assist recipients in developing appropriate and reasonable language assistance measures designed to address the needs of LEP individuals. The NEH Title VI implementing regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination and policies and practices that appear neutral but have a discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient entity's policies or practices regarding the provision of benefits and services to LEP persons need not be intentional to be discriminatory, but may constitute a violation of Title VI if they have an adverse effect on the ability of national origin minorities to meaningfully access programs and services. Recipient entities have considerable flexibility in determining how to comply with their legal obligation in the LEP setting and are not required to use the suggested methods and options that follow. However, recipient entities must establish and implement policies and procedures for providing language assistance sufficient to fulfill their Title VI responsibilities and provide LEP persons with meaningful access to services. III. Policy Guidance 1. Who Is Covered All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from NEH, either directly or indirectly, through a grant, cooperative agreement, contract or subcontract, are covered by this policy guidance. Title VI applies to all Federal financial assistance, which includes but is not limited to awards and loans of Federal funds, awards or donations of Federal property, details of Federal personnel, or any agreement, arrangement or other contract that has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance. Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. In most cases, when a recipient receives Federal financial assistance for a particular program or activity, all operations of the recipient are covered by Title VI, not just the part of the program that uses the Federal assistance. Thus, all parts of the recipient's operations would be covered by Title VI, even if the Federal assistance were used only by one part. Finally, some recipients operate in jurisdictions in which English has been declared the official language. Nonetheless, these recipients continue to be subject to Federal non-discrimination requirements, including those applicable to the provision of Federally assisted services to persons with limited English proficiency. 2. Basic Requirement: All Recipients Must Take Reasonable Steps To Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Persons Title VI and the NEH implementing regulations require that recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the information, programs, and services they provide. Recipients of Federal assistance have considerable flexibility in determining precisely how to fulfill this obligation. It is also important to emphasize that academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries are in the business of maintaining, sharing, and disseminating vast amounts of information and items, most of which are created or generated by third parties. In large measure, the common service provided by these recipients is access to information, whether maintained on-site or elsewhere, not the generation of the source information itself. This distinction is critical in properly applying Title VI to academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums, libraries, and similar programs. For example, in the context of library and museum services, recipients initially should focus on their procedures or services that directly impact access in three areas. First, applications for library or museum membership cards, instructions on card usage, exhibit brochures, building maps, and dissemination of information on where and how source material and collections are maintained and indexed, should be available in appropriate languages other than English. Second, recipients should, consistent with the four factor analysis, determine what reasonable steps could be taken to enhance the value of their collections or services to LEP persons, including, for example, accessing language-appropriate books through inter-library loans, direct acquisitions, and/or on-line materials. Third, to the extent a recipient provides services beyond museum exhibitions or access to books, art, or cultural collections to include the generation of information about those collections, research aids, or community educational outreach such as reading or discovery programs, these additional or enhanced services should be separately evaluated under the four-factor analysis. A similar distinction can be employed with respect to a museum's exhibits versus a museum's procedures for meaningful access to those exhibits. What constitutes reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access in the context of Federally-assisted programs and activities in the area of academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and library services will be contingent upon a balancing of four factors:
(1)The number and proportion of eligible LEP constituents;
(2)the frequency of LEP individuals' contact with the program;
(3)the nature and importance of the program; and
(4)the resources available, including costs. Each of these factors is summarized below. In addition, recipients should consult Section V of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41459-41460 or *http://www.lep.gov,* for additional detail on the nature, scope, and application of these factors.
(1)Number or Proportion of LEP Individuals The appropriateness of any action will depend on the size and proportion of the LEP population that the recipient serves and the prevalence of particular languages. Programs that serve a few or even one LEP person are still subject to the Title VI obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access. The first factor in determining the reasonableness of a recipient's efforts is the number or proportion of people who will be effectively excluded from meaningful access to the benefits or services if efforts are not made to remove language barriers. The steps that are reasonable for a recipient who serves one LEP person a year may be different than those expected from a recipient that serves several LEP persons each day.
(2)Frequency of Contact With the Program Frequency of contact between the program or activity and LEP individuals is another factor to be weighed. If LEP individuals must access the recipient's program or activity on a daily basis, a recipient has greater duties than if such contact is unpredictable and infrequent. Recipients should take into account local or regional conditions when determining frequency of contact with the program, and should have the flexibility to tailor their services to those needs.
(3)Nature and Importance of the Program The importance of the recipient's program to beneficiaries will affect the determination of what reasonable steps are required. More affirmative steps must be taken in programs where the denial or delay of access may have serious, or even life or death implications than in programs that are not crucial to one's day-to-day existence, economic livelihood, safety, or education. For example, the obligations of a Federally assisted school or hospital differ from those of a Federally assisted nonprofit organization, museum or library. This factor implies that the obligation to provide translation services will be highest in programs providing education, job training, medical/health services, social welfare services, and similar services. As a general matter, it is less likely that nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries receiving assistance from the NEH will provide services having a similar immediate and direct impact on a person's life or livelihood. Thus, in large measure, it is the first factor (number or proportion of LEP individuals) that will have the greatest impact in determining the initial need for language assistance services. In assessing the effect on individuals of failure to provide language services, recipients must consider the importance of the benefit to individuals both immediately and in the long-term. Another aspect of this factor is the nature of the program itself. Some museum content may be extremely accessible regardless of language. In these instances, little translation might be required.
(4)Resources Available NEH is aware that its recipients may experience difficulties with resource allocation. Many of the organizations' overall budgets, and awards involved are quite small. The resources available to a recipient of Federal assistance may have an impact on the nature of the steps that recipient must take to ensure meaningful access. For example, a small recipient with limited resources may not have to take the same steps as a larger recipient to provide LEP assistance in programs that have a limited number of eligible LEP individuals, where contact is infrequent, where the total cost of providing language services is relatively high, and/or where the program is not providing an important service or benefit from, for instance, a health, education, economic, or safety perspective. Translation and interpretation costs are appropriately included in award budget requests. This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the “mix” of LEP services required. The correct mix should be based on what is both necessary and reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. Even those award recipients who serve very few LEP persons on an infrequent basis should use a balancing analysis to determine whether the importance of the service(s) provided and minimal costs make language assistance measures reasonable even in the case of limited and infrequent interactions with LEP persons. Recipients have substantial flexibility in determining the appropriate mix. IV. Strategies for Ensuring Meaningful Access Academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries have a long history of interacting with people with varying language backgrounds and capabilities within the communities where they are located. The agency's goal is to continue to encourage these efforts and share practices so that other academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries can benefit from other institutions' experiences. The following are examples of language assistance strategies that are potentially useful for all recipients. These strategies incorporate a variety of options and methods for providing meaningful access to LEP beneficiaries and provide examples of how recipients should take each of the four factors discussed above into account when developing an LEP strategy. Not every option is necessary or appropriate for every recipient with respect to all of its programs and activities. Indeed, a language assistance plan need not be intricate; it may be as simple as being prepared to use a commercially available language line to obtain immediate interpreting services and/or having bilingual staff members available who are fluent in the most common non-English languages spoken in the area. Recipients should exercise the flexibility afforded under this Guidance to select those language assistance measures which have the greatest potential to address, at appropriate levels and in reasonable manners, the specific language needs of the LEP populations they serve. Finally, the examples below are not intended to suggest that if services to LEP populations aren't legally required under Title VI and Title VI regulations, they should not be undertaken. Part of the way in which academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries build communities is by cutting across barriers like language. A small investment in outreach to a linguistically diverse community may well result in a rich cultural exchange that benefits not only the LEP population, but also the academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries and the community as a whole. Examples: • Identification of the languages that are likely to be encountered in, and the number of LEP persons that are likely to be affected by, the program. This information may be gathered through review of census and constituent data as well as data from school systems and community agencies and organizations; • Posting signs in public areas in several languages, informing the public of its right to free interpreter services and inviting members of the public to identify themselves as persons needing language assistance; • Use of “I speak” cards for public-contact personnel so that the public can easily identify staff language abilities; • Employment of staff, bilingual in appropriate languages, in public contact positions; • Contracts with interpreting services that can provide competent interpreters in a wide variety of languages in a timely manner; • Formal arrangements with community groups for competent and timely interpreter services by community volunteers; • An arrangement with a telephone language interpreter line for on-demand service; • Translations of application forms, instructional, informational and other key documents into appropriate non-English languages and provide oral interpreter assistance with documents for those persons whose language does not exist in written form; • Procedures for effective telephone communication between staff and LEP persons, including instructions for English-speaking employees to obtain assistance from bilingual staff or interpreters when initiating or receiving calls to or from LEP persons; • Notice to and training of all staff, particularly public contact staff, with respect to the recipient's Title VI obligation to provide language assistance to LEP persons, and on the language assistance policies and the procedures to be followed in securing such assistance in a timely manner; • Insertion of notices, in appropriate languages, about access to free interpreters and other language assistance, in brochures, pamphlets, manuals, and other materials disseminated to the public and to staff; and • Notice to and consultation with community organizations that represent LEP language groups, regarding problems and solutions, including standards and procedures for using their members as interpreters. In identifying language assistance measures, recipients should avoid relying on an LEP person's family members, friends, or other informal interpreters to provide meaningful access to important programs and activities. However, where LEP persons so desire, they should be permitted to use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the free language services expressly offered by the recipient. But where a balancing of the four factors indicate that recipient-provided language assistance is warranted, the recipient should take care to ensure that the LEP person's choice is voluntary, that the LEP person is aware of the possible problems if the preferred interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows that a competent interpreter could be provided by the recipient at no cost. The use of family and friends as interpreters may be an appropriate option where proper application of the four factors would lead to a conclusion that recipient-provided language assistance is not necessary. An example of this might be a bookstore or cafeteria associated with a museum. There, the importance and nature of the activity may be relatively low and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, conflict of interest, or the need for technical accuracy. In addition, the resources needed and costs of providing language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP person's use of family, friends, or other informal ad hoc interpreters may be appropriate. As noted throughout this guidance, NEH award recipients have a great deal of flexibility in addressing the needs of their constituents with limited English skills. That flexibility does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the obligation that those needs be addressed. NEH recipients should apply the four factors outlined above to the various kinds of contacts that they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. By balancing the number or proportion of people with limited English skills served, the frequency of their contact with the program, the importance and nature of the program, and the resources available, NEH awardees' Title VI obligations in many cases will be satisfied by making available oral language assistance or commissioning translations on an as-requested and as-needed basis. There are many circumstances where, after an application and balancing of the four factors noted above, Title VI would not require translation. For example, Title VI does not require a library to translate its collections, but it does require the implementation of appropriate language assistance measures to permit an otherwise eligible LEP person to apply for a library card and potentially to access appropriate-language materials through inter-library loans or other reasonable methods. The NEH views this policy guidance as providing sufficient flexibility to allow the NEH to continue to fund language-dependent programs in both English and other languages without requiring translation that would be inconsistent with the nature of the program. Recipients should consult Section VI of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41461-41464 or *http://www.lep.gov,* for additional clarification on the standards applicable to assessing interpreter and translator competence, and for determining when translations of documents vital to accessing program benefits should be undertaken. The key to ensuring meaningful access for people with limited English skills is effective communication. Academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, museums and libraries can ensure effective communication by developing and implementing a comprehensive language assistance program that includes policies and procedures for identifying and assessing the language needs of its LEP constituents. Such a program should also provide for a range of oral language assistance options, notice to LEP persons of the right to language assistance, periodic training of staff, monitoring of the program and, in certain circumstances, the translation of written materials. Each recipient should, based on its own volume and frequency of contact with LEP clients and its own available resources, adopt a procedure for the resolution of complaints regarding the provision of language assistance and for notifying the public of their right to and how to file a complaint under Title VI. State recipients, who will frequently serve large numbers of LEP individuals, may consider appointing a senior level employee to coordinate the language assistance program and to ensure that there is regular monitoring of the program. V. Compliance and Enforcement Executive Order 13166 requires that each Federal department or agency extending Federal financial assistance subject to Title VI issue separate guidance implementing uniform Title VI compliance standards with respect to LEP persons. Where recipients of Federal financial assistance from NEH also receive assistance from one or more other Federal departments or agencies, there is no obligation to conduct and document separate but identical analyses and language assistance plans for NEH. NEH, in discharging its compliance and enforcement obligations under Title VI, looks to analyses performed and plans developed in response to similar detailed LEP guidance issued by other Federal agencies. Recipients may rely upon guidance issued by those agencies. NEH's regulations implementing Title VI contain compliance and enforcement provisions to ensure that a recipient's policies and practices overcome barriers resulting from language differences that would deny LEP persons an equal opportunity to participate in and access to programs, services and benefits offered by NEH. See 45 CFR Part 1110. The agency will ensure that its recipient entities fulfill their responsibilities to LEP persons through the procedures provided for in the Title VI regulations. The Title VI regulations provide that NEH will investigate (or contact its State recipient of funds to investigate, if appropriate) whenever it receives a complaint, report or other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI. If the investigation results in a finding of compliance, NEH will inform the recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for the determination. If the investigation results in a finding of noncompliance, NEH must inform the recipient of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings that sets out the areas of noncompliance and the steps that must be taken to correct the noncompliance, and must attempt to secure voluntary compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, the NEH will secure compliance through
(a)the suspension or termination of Federal assistance after the recipient has been given an opportunity for an administrative hearing,
(b)referral to the Department of Justice for injunctive relief or other enforcement proceedings, or
(c)any other means authorized by Federal, state, or local law. Under the Title VI regulations, the NEH has a legal obligation to seek voluntary compliance in resolving cases and cannot seek the termination of funds until it has engaged in voluntary compliance efforts and has determined that compliance cannot be secured voluntarily. NEH will engage in voluntary compliance efforts and will provide technical assistance to recipients at all stages of its investigation. During these efforts to secure voluntary compliance, NEH will propose reasonable timetables for achieving compliance and will consult with and assist recipients in exploring cost effective ways of coming into compliance. In determining a recipient's compliance with Title VI, the NEH's primary concern is to ensure that the recipient's policies and procedures overcome barriers resulting from language differences that would deny LEP persons a meaningful opportunity to participate in and access programs, services, and benefits. A recipient's appropriate use of the methods and options discussed in this policy guidance will be viewed by the NEH as evidence of a recipient's willingness to comply voluntarily with its Title VI obligations. If implementation of one or more of these options would be so financially burdensome as to defeat the legitimate objectives of a recipient/covered entity's program, or if there are equally effective alternatives for ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to programs and services (such as timely effective oral interpretation of vital documents), NEH will not find the recipient/covered entity in noncompliance. If you have any questions related to this policy, please contact the NEH Office of the General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-13544 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ Docket Nos. Redacted; License Nos. Redacted; EA-06-196] In the Matter of Certain 10 CFR Part 50 Licensees Who Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel Under the Provisions of 10 CFR Part 71 Order Modifying Licenses (Effective Immediately) I. The licensees identified in Attachment 1 (Redacted) to this Order have been issued a specific license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing the possession of spent nuclear fuel and a general license authorizing the transportation of spent nuclear fuel [in a transportation package approved by the Commission] in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR parts 50 and 71. Commission regulations for the shipment of spent nuclear fuel at 10 CFR 73.37(a) require these licensees to maintain a physical protection system that meets the requirements contained in 10 CFR 73.37(b), (c), (d), and (e). II. On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility or regulated activity. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has determined that certain additional security measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 2 of this Order, on all licensees identified in Attachment 1 of this Order. 1 These additional security requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. 1 Attachments 1 and 2 contain Safeguards Information and will not be released to the public. The Commission recognizes that licensees may have already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 2 to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments of spent nuclear fuel, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport of spent nuclear fuel. Although the additional security measures implemented by licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of common defense and security, in light of the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that the security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, all licenses identified in Attachment 1 to this Order shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, and in light of the common defense and security matters identified above which warrant the issuance of this Order, the Commission finds that the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. III. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50 and 71, *It is hereby ordered,* effective immediately, that all licenses identified in Attachment 1 to this Order are modified as follows: A. All licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in the licensee's security plan. The licensees shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation by September 1, 2006, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after August 11, 2006, whichever is earlier. B.1. All licensees shall, by September 1, 2006, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after August 11, 2006, whichever is earlier, notify the Commission,
(1)if they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 2,
(2)if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or
(3)if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would adversely impact the safe transport of spent fuel must notify the Commission, by September 1, 2006, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after August 11, 2006, whichever is earlier, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 2 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the activity to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the licensee must supplement its response to Condition B1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B1. C. 1. All licensees shall, by September 1, 2006, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after August 11, 2006, whichever is earlier, submit to the Commission a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 2. 2. All licensees shall report by September 1, 2006, to the Commission when they have achieved or plan to achieve full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 2. D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. Licensee responses to Conditions B1, B2, C1, and C2 above, shall be submitted to the NRC to the attention of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 50.4. In addition, licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by the licensee of good cause. IV. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, as appropriate for the specific facility; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to
(301)415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* , and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to
(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by the licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty
(20)days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. This Order contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0012. The burden to the public for the mandatory information collections is estimated to average 500 hours per licensee, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV;* and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0012), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of August, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bruce A. Boger, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-13561 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-83; License No. R-56; EA-06-190] In the Matter of University of Florida, and All Other Persons Who Seek or Obtain Access to New Safeguards Information Described Herein; Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Check Requirements for Access to New Safeguards Information (Effective Immediately) I The University of Florida (the Licensee) holds a license issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA)of 1954, as amended, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission), authorizing it to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission. On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct amended section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and a Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI)identification and criminal history records check of any person who is to be permitted to have access to Safeguards Information (SGI). 1 The NRC's implementation of this requirement cannot await the completion of the SGI rulemaking, which is underway, because the EPAct fingerprinting and criminal history check requirements for access to SGI were immediately effective upon enactment of the EPAct. Although the EPAct permits the Commission by rule to except certain categories of individuals from the fingerprinting requirement, which the Commission has done (see 10 CFR 73.59, 71 FR 33989 (June 13, 2006)), it is unlikely that many Licensee employees are excepted from the fingerprinting requirement by the “fingerprinting relief” rule. Individuals relieved from fingerprinting and criminal history checks under the relief rule include Federal, State, and local officials and law enforcement personnel; Agreement State inspectors who conduct security inspections on behalf of the NRC; members of Congress and certain employees of members of Congress or Congressional Committees, and representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)or certain foreign government organizations. In addition, individuals who have active federal security clearances have satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be fingerprinted again. Therefore, in accordance with section 149 of the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing additional requirements for access to new SGI, 2 as set forth by this Order, so that the Licensee can obtain new SGI. This Order also imposes requirements for access to new SGI by any person 3, from any person, whether or not a Licensee, Applicant or Certificate Holder of the Commission or Agreement States. 1 Safeguards Information is a form of sensitive, unclassified, security-related information that the Commission has the authority to designate and protect under section 147 of the AEA. 2 “New SGI” means SGI generated subsequent to August 8, 2005, the date of enactment of the EPAct. “New SGI” also means any SGI, regardless of when it was generated, that is being accessed by an individual who has never been previously granted access to SGI. 3 Person means
(1)any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government agency other than the Commission or the Department of Energy, except that the Department of Energy shall be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the Department of Energy specified in section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and
(2)any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing. II The Commission has broad statutory authority to protect SGI and prohibit its unauthorized disclosure. Section 147 of the AEA grants the Commission explicit authority to issue such orders as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of safeguards information. Furthermore, section 652 of the EPAct amended section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and an FBI identification and a criminal history records check of each individual who seeks access to SGI. In order to provide assurance that the Licensee is implementing appropriate measures to comply with the fingerprinting and criminal history check requirements for access to new SGI, the Licensee shall implement the requirements of this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the common defense and security matters identified above, which warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to sections 104, 147, 149, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR parts 50 and 73, *It is hereby ordered* , effective immediately, that the licensee and all other persons who seek or obtain access to new safeguards information, as described above, shall comply with the requirements set forth in this order. A. No person may have access to new Safeguards Information unless that person has a need to know the new SGI, has been fingerprinted and undergone an FBI identification and criminal history records check, which has been favorably decided, and satisfies all other applicable requirements for access to SGI. Fingerprinting and the FBI identification and criminal history records check are not required, however, for any person who is relieved from that requirement by 10 CFR 73.59 (71 FR 33989 (June 13, 2006)) or who has an active Federal security clearance. B. No person may provide new SGI to any other person except in accordance with condition III.A. above. Prior to sharing new SGI with any other person, a copy of this Order shall be provided to that person. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration of good cause by the Licensee. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty
(20)days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible delays in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to *hearingdocket@nrc.gov* and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final twenty
(20)days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated this 11th day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bruce A. Boger, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-13562 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)has issued for public comment a draft of a new guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The draft regulatory guide, entitled “Guidelines for Evaluating Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal Components Due to the Effects of the Light-Water Reactor Environment for New Reactors,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1144, which should be mentioned in all related correspondence. This proposed regulatory guide describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in complying with the agency's regulations in Title 10, part 50, of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR Part 50), “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” Specifically, in Appendix A to10 CFR part 50, General Design Criterion
(GDC)1, “Quality Standards and Records,” requires, in part, that structures, systems, and components that are important to safety must be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety function performed. In addition, GDC 30, “Quality of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,” requires, in part, that components that are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary must be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to the highest practical quality standards. Augmenting those design criteria, 10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and Standards,” endorses the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for design of safety-related systems and components. In particular, Section 50.55a(c), “Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,” requires, in part, that components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary must be meet the requirements for Class 1 components in Section III, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,” of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Specifically, those Class 1 requirements contain provisions, including fatigue design curves, for determining a component's suitability for cyclic service. These fatigue design curves are based on strain-controlled tests performed on small polished specimens, at room temperature, in air environments. Thus, these curves do not address the impact of the reactor coolant system environment. This draft regulatory guide provides guidance for use in determining the acceptable fatigue life of ASME pressure boundary components, with consideration of the light-water reactor
(LWR)environment. In so doing, this guide describes a methodology that the NRC staff considers acceptable to support reviews of applications that the agency expects to receive for new nuclear reactor construction permits or operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50, design certifications under 10 CFR part 52, and combined licenses under 10 CFR part 52 that do not reference a standard design. Because of significant conservatism in quantifying other plant-related variables (such as cyclic behavior, including stress and loading rates) involved in cumulative fatigue life calculations, the design of the current fleet of reactors is satisfactory, and the plants are safe to operate. The ASME Section III design curves, developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, are based on tests conducted in laboratory air environments at ambient temperatures. The original code developers applied margins of 2 on strain and 20 on cyclic life to account for variations in materials, surface finish, data scatter, and environmental effects (including temperature differences between specimen test conditions and reactor operating experience). However, the developers lacked sufficient data to explicitly evaluate and account for the degradation attributable to exposure to aqueous coolants. More recent fatigue test data from the United States, Japan, and elsewhere show that the LWR environment can have a significant impact on the fatigue life of carbon and low-alloy steels, as well as austenitic stainless steel. Two distinct methods can be used to incorporate LWR environmental effects into the fatigue analysis of ASME Class 1 components. The first method involves developing new fatigue curves that are applicable to LWR environments. Given that the fatigue life of ASME Class 1 components in LWR environments is a function of several parameters, this method would necessitate developing several fatigue curves to address potential parameter variations. An alternative would be to develop a single bounding fatigue curve, which may be overly conservative for most applications. The second method involves using an environmental correction factor (F <sup>en</sup> ) to account for LWR environments by correcting the fatigue usage calculated with the ASME “air” curves. This method affords the designer greater flexibility to calculate the appropriate impacts for specific environmental parameters. In addition, applicants have already used this method in their license renewal applications. The NRC staff has selected the F <sup>en</sup> method, as described in NUREG/CR-6909, “Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials.” In particular, Appendix A to that report, “Incorporating Environmental Effects into Fatigue Evaluations,” describes a methodology that the staff considers acceptable to incorporate the effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue usage factor evaluations of metal components. In addition, NUREG/CR-6909 provides a comprehensive review of, and technical basis for, the methodology proposed in this draft regulatory guide, including analysis of each parameter affecting the fatigue evaluations. The NRC staff is soliciting comments on both Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1144 and NUREG/CR-6909. Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Please mention DG-1144 and/or NUREG/CR-6909 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: *NRCREP@nrc.gov.* You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol A. Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *CAG@nrc.gov.* Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-5144. Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1144 may be directed to Hipolito J. Gonzalez at
(301)415-0068 or by e-mail to *HJG@nrc.gov.* Comments would be most helpful if received by September 25, 2006. Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of the draft regulatory guide are available through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/.* Electronic copies are also available in ADAMS ( *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* ), under Accession #ML060970173. Electronic copies of NUREG/CR-6909 are available through the NRC's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/ docs4comment.html.* NUREG/CR-6909 is also available through ADAMS ( *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,* under Accession No. ML061650347. In addition, regulatory guides and NUREG-series reports are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at
(301)415-4737 or
(800)397-4205, by fax at
(301)415-3548, and by e-mail to *PDR@nrc.gov.* Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to *DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov;* or by fax to
(301)415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of July, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mark A. Cunningham, Director, Division of Fuel, Engineering & Radiological Research, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E6-13560 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)Analyses; Solicitation of Public Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: NRC is soliciting public comment on its Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03 (LR-ISG) for preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)analyses. This LR-ISG recommends that applicants for license renewal use the Guidance Document NEI 05-01, Rev. A (ADAMS Accession No. ML060530203) when preparing their SAMA analyses. The NRC staff issues LR-ISGs to facilitate timely implementation of the license renewal rule and to review activities associated with a license renewal application. Upon reviewing public comments, the NRC staff will evaluate the comments and make a determination to incorporate the comments, as appropriate. Once the NRC completes the LR-ISG, it will issue the LR-ISG for NRC and industry use. The NRC staff will also incorporate the approved LR-ISG into the next revision of Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, “Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.” DATES: Comments may be submitted by September 18, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments should be delivered to: 11545 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, Room T-6D59, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Persons may also provide comments via e-mail at *RLE@NRC.GOV* . The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard L. Emch, Jr., Senior Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-1590 or by e-mail at *rle@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Attachment 1 to this **Federal Register** notice, entitled *Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)Analyses* contains the NRC staff's rationale for publishing the proposed LR-ISG-2006-03. Attachment 2 to this **Federal Register** notice, entitled *Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)Analyses* , contains the guidance for preparing SAMA analyses related to license renewal applications. The NRC staff is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the proposed LR-ISG-2006-03. After the NRC staff considers any public comments, it will make a determination regarding the proposed LR-ISG. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Attachment 1—Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)Analyses Staff Position: The NRC staff recommends that applicants for license renewal follow the guidance provided in Nuclear Energy Institute NEI 05-01, “Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)Analysis—Guidance Document,” Rev. A when preparing their SAMA analyses. Rationale: The Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)developed a generic Guidance Document NEI 05-01, Rev. A, to help clarify the NRC staff's expectations regarding the information that needs to be included in SAMA analyses. The NRC staff reviewed and concluded that NEI 05-01, Rev. A describes existing NRC regulations, and facilitates complete preparation of SAMA analysis submittals. The staff finds that utilization of the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev. A will result in improved quality in SAMA analyses and a reduction in the number of requests for additional information. Attachment 2—Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)Analyses Introduction A Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)analyses is required as part of a license renewal application, if a SAMA analysis has not already been performed for the plant and reviewed by the NRC staff. SAMA analyses have been performed and submitted to the NRC as part of all the applications for license renewal received by the staff thus far. Therefore, this LR-ISG is being proposed consistent with our goal to more efficiently resolve license renewal issues identified by the staff or the industry. Background and Discussion After receiving extensive requests for additional information regarding the SAMA analyses, several applicants for license renewal concluded that they did not fully understand the kind of information that the NRC staff was expecting to see in SAMA analyses. The Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)developed a generic guidance document to help clarify the NRC staff's expectations regarding the information that needs to be submitted in SAMA analyses. On April 8, 2005, NEI submitted NEI 05-01, “Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA)Analysis—Guidance Document.” The NRC staff reviewed this guidance document, and by letter, dated July 12, 2005, provided comments on NEI 05-01. The NRC staff's comments were discussed during a public meeting between NEI and NRC on July 21, 2005. On February 17, 2006, NEI submitted its NEI 05-01, Rev. A, dated November 2005. The NRC staff reviewed and concluded that this version fully resolved the NRC staff's comments. In addition, the NRC staff concluded that NEI 05-01, Rev. A, describes existing NRC regulations, and facilitates complete preparation of SAMA analysis submittals. Some applicants for license renewal have submitted SAMA analyses using the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev A. The NRC staff found improved quality in the submitted SAMA analyses and a reduction in the number of requests for additional information for those applications that followed the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev. A. Proposed Action The staff is proposing that applicants for license renewal follow the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev. A when preparing their SAMA analyses. The staff finds that NEI 05-01, Rev. A, describes existing NRC regulations, and facilitates complete preparation of SAMA analysis submittals. Although this proposed LR-ISG does not convey a change in the NRC's regulations or how they are being interpreted, it is being provided to facilitate complete preparation of future SAMA analysis submittals in support of applications for license renewal. The NRC staff plans to incorporate the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev. A, into a future update of Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, “Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.” Because this LR-ISG provides a clarification of existing guidance with no additional requirements, the staff did not perform a backfit evaluation. For those that are interested in reviewing NEI 05-01, Rev. A, the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number is ML060530203. [FR Doc. E6-13559 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54300; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-67] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Equity Options Designated Primary Market Maker Transaction Fee August 10, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on July 17, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or the “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CBOE is proposing to amend its Fees Schedule to increase the equity options Designated Primary Market Maker (“DPM”) transaction fee. The text of the proposed rule change is on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to increase the equity options DPM transaction fee from the current $.14 per contract to $.16 per contract, effective August 1, 2006. The Exchange believes that this fee increase is appropriate given that DPM costs are expected to decrease as the result of recently implemented enhanced DPM Linkage transaction fee credits. 5 5 *See* Section 21 of the CBOE Fees Schedule. *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53866 (May 25, 2006), 71 FR 31237 (June 1, 2006). Linkage order fees (except for Satisfaction Orders) and related transaction fee credits are in effect on a pilot basis until July 31, 2007. *See* Footnote 8 and Section 21 of the CBOE Fees Schedule dated August 3, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) 7 of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE members. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 9 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 10 *Id* . IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an *e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2006-67 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-67. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-67 and should be submitted on or before September 7, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13567 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54307; File No. SR-NASD-2006-096] Self-Regulatory Organizations: National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Additional Market Participant Identifier Functionality on the Alternative Display Facility August 11, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on August 8, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. NASD has filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 5 NASD has requested the Commission to waive the 30-day pre-operative delay required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). *See* discussion *infra* Section III. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to amend NASD Rule 4613A and adopt IM-4613A-1 to enable electronic communications network (“ECN”) members that post quotations through the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”) ( *i.e.* , Registered Reporting ADF ECNs), to request and receive multiple market participant identifiers (“MPIDs”) with which to enter multiple quotes/orders in the ADF and report trades through the ADF trade reporting facility, the Trade Reporting and Comparison Service (“TRACS”), pursuant to the NASD Rule 4000A Series. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in *italics.* 4613A. Character of Quotations
(a)No Change. *(b) Primary and Additional MPIDs* *(1) The first Market Participant Identifier (“MPID”) issued to an NASD Market Participant shall be referred to as the NASD Market Participant's “Primary MPID.” For a pilot period ending January 26, 2007, a Registered Reporting ADF ECN may request the use of Additional MPIDs for displaying quotes/orders and reporting trades through TRACS for any ADF-Eligible Security (as defined in NASD Rule 4100A). A Registered Reporting ADF ECN that ceases to meet the obligations appurtenant to its Primary MPID in any security shall not be permitted to use Additional MPIDs for any purpose in that security.*
(b)through
(e)renumbered as
(c)through (f). IM-4613A-1 Procedures For Allocation of Multiple MPIDs *NASD considers the issuance of, the display of, and the trade reporting with Additional MPIDs to be a privilege and not a right. NASD has developed the following method for allocating the privilege of receiving, displaying, and trade reporting with Additional MPIDs in an orderly, predictable, and fair manner. While NASD does not intend to place a numerical limit on the number of Additional MPIDs it may grant to Registered Reporting ADF ECNs, given the agent business model of ECNs, NASD does not anticipate the granting of many additional MPIDs to Registered Reporting ADF ECNs.* *As described in Rule 4613A, NASD will automatically designate a Registered Reporting ADF ECN's first MPID as a “Primary MPID.” Additional MPIDs will be designated as such. Registered Reporting ADF ECNs are required to use their Primary MPID in accordance with the requirements of NASD Rule 4613A as well as all existing requirements for the use of MPIDs in NASD systems and under NASD rules. Each of an ECN's MPID will be subject to the requirements of NASD Rule 4623A.* *If it is determined that one or more Additional MPIDs are being used improperly, NASD staff retains full discretion to limit or withdraw its grant of the Additional MPID(s) for all purposes for all securities. In addition, if a Registered Reporting ADF ECN no longer fulfills the conditions appurtenant to its Primary MPID (e.g., by being placed into an unexcused withdrawal), it may not use an Additional MPID for any purpose in that security.* *The first priority of NASD's method for allocating the privilege of displaying and trade reporting with Additional MPIDs is that each Registered Reporting ADF ECN should be permitted to display quotations and report trades under a Primary MPID before any is permitted to display additional quotations under and report trades with Additional MPIDs. If all requests for Primary MPIDs have been satisfied, NASD will then register Additional MPIDs on a first-come-first-served basis, consistent with the procedures listed below.* *A Registered Reporting ADF ECN shall contact NASD in writing setting forth the bona fide business and/or regulatory reasons for requesting an Additional MPID. NASD will consider the business and/or regulatory reasons demonstrated by the Registered Reporting ADF ECN and promptly respond to the Registered Reporting ADF ECN. If an Additional MPID is granted, it will be subject to the same requirements applicable to a Primary MPID. NASD staff retains full discretion to limit or withdraw the Additional MPID privileges of a Registered Reporting ADF ECN.* *A Registered Reporting ADF ECN that posts a quotation through either a Primary MPID or Additional MPID and reports a trade to TRACS as a result of such a posted quotation must utilize the corresponding Primary MPID or Additional MPID for reporting purposes through which the quotation was originally posted (i.e., Registered Reporting ADF ECNs must use the same MPID for TRACS trade reporting as was used for ADF quotation posting).* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose An NASD member that registers as a market maker or ECN is currently permitted to enter one two-sided quotation per security in the ADF and is assigned a unique MPID with which to enter such quotations. The NASD 4600A Rule Series governs the character of such quotations and the rights and obligations of members that display quotations in the ADF via their MPIDs. NASD proposes to amend NASD Rule 4613A and adopt IM-4613A-1 to permit NASD Registered Reporting ADF ECNs to request the use of additional MPIDs for a pilot period ending January 26, 2007. 6 At this time only ECNs have been certified for posting quotations through the ADF and at no time has a registered market maker been certified for the ADF. Accordingly, NASD believes it appropriate to limit the scope of this proposed rule to Registered Reporting ADF ECNs. 7 An ECN would be entitled to request additional MPIDs for displaying quotes/orders and reporting trades through the ADF trade reporting facility, TRACS, pursuant to the NASD Rule 4000A Series. 6 This date coincides with the expiration of the current ADF pilot period. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53699 (April 21, 2006), 71 FR 25271 (April 28, 2006). Accordingly, the provisions set forth in Rule 4613A and IM-4613A-1 will be extended with any extension of an ADF pilot period. 7 In support of the requirement under the Act that NASD rules not result in unfair discrimination between members ( *see* 15 U.S.C. 78o-(b)(6)), NASD commits to expand additional MPID privilege functionality to Registered Reporting ADF Market Makers at such time that at least one broker-dealer NASD member becomes certified for posting quotations through the ADF and demonstrates a bona fide business and/or regulatory need for additional MPID functionality. Registered Reporting ADF ECNs that are permitted the use of additional MPIDs for displaying quotes/orders would be subject to the same rules applicable to the members' first quotation. In other words, ECNs that display one or more additional quotes/orders would be required to comply with all rules applicable to ECNs in their display of quotes/orders. NASD believes that the ability to enter quotes and orders and to display quotations under an additional MPID would potentially carry with it similar benefits that have resulted from the supplemental MPID Program of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”). 8 Specifically, the introduction of additional MPIDs on the ADF may enable Registered Reporting ADF ECNs to contribute more liquidity to the market, add to the transparency of trading interest, and better serve the needs of investors and the needs of Registered Reporting ADF ECNs themselves. 9 As noted above, Registered Reporting ADF ECNs that use an additional MPID would be required to comply with all NASD and Commission rules applicable to their current use of a single MPID. Registered Reporting ADF ECNs would be prohibited from using an additional MPID to accomplish indirectly what they are prohibited from doing directly through their Primary MPID. To the extent that the allocation of additional MPIDs were to create regulatory confusion or ambiguity or would diminish the quality or rigor of the regulation of the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market, every inference would be drawn against the use of additional MPIDs. Moreover, pursuant to the proposed rule and interpretive material, NASD staff retains full discretion to determine whether a bona fide regulatory and/or business need exists for being granted the additional MPID privilege and to limit or withdraw the additional MPID display privilege at any time. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47954 (May 30, 2003), 68 FR 34017 (June 6, 2003). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53192 (January 30, 2006), 71 FR 6302 (February 4, 2006). 9 NASD will assess no fees for the issuance or use of an additional MPID, other than the Commission-approved fees set forth in NASD Rule 7010. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 10 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with these requirements because it will provide a process by which ECNs can request, and NASD can properly allocate, the use of additional MPIDs for displaying quotes and orders through the ADF. 10 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposal has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 12 a proposed “non-controversial” rule change does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. NASD has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. 13 The proposal will extend for ECN participants on the ADF a functionality that has been widely available to ECNs on Nasdaq through a pilot program. Allowing this proposal to become operative immediately is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the benefits of the pilot and the use of multiple MPIDs can continue without undue disruption. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 13 For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-NASD-2006-096 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2006-096. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-2006-096 and should be submitted on or before September 7, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13568 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5506] Bureau of Political-Military Affairs: Revocation of Defense Export Licenses to Venezuela AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the United States will no longer authorize the export of defense articles and defense services to Venezuela. Furthermore, all licenses and approvals to export or otherwise transfer defense articles and defense services to Venezuela pursuant to section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act
(AECA)are revoked. The use of exemptions from licensing as provided for in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR)also are revoked with regard to Venezuela with the exception of the license exemptions at section 123.17 for use in connection with certain temporary exports of firearms and ammunition for personal use. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen J. Tomchik, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, Telephone
(202)663-2799 or FAX
(202)261-8199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It is the policy of the U.S. Government to deny all applications for licenses and other approvals to export or otherwise transfer defense articles and services to Venezuela until further notice. In addition, U.S. manufacturers and exporters, and any other affected parties (e.g., brokers) are hereby notified that the Department of State has revoked all licenses and approvals authorizing the export of or other transfers of defense articles or services to Venezuela. Revocation extends to the deletion of Venezuela from any manufacturing license or technical assistance agreement involving Venezuela, including any agreement that has Venezuela as a sales territory. This action also precludes the use in connection with Venezuela of any exemptions from licensing or other approval requirements included in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR)(22 CFR parts 120-130), with the exception of the license exemptions at section 123.17 of the ITAR for exports of firearms and ammunition to Venezuela when for personal use by individuals (not for resale or retransfer, including to the Government of Venezuela) and the firearms will be returned to the United States. This action has been taken pursuant to Section 38 of the AECA (22 U.S.C. 2778) and relevant provisions of the ITAR in furtherance of the foreign policy of the United States. Dated: August 2, 2006. Robert G. Joseph, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13583 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5502] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “A Bronze Menagerie: Mat Weight of Early China” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “A Bronze Menagerie: Mat Weight of Early China,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, Massachusetts, from on or about October 5, 2006, until on or about January 14, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulznsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 10, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13576 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5500] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Constable's Great Landscapes: The Six-Foot Paintings” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Constable's Great Landscapes: The Six-Foot Paintings,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about October 1, 2006, until on or about December 31, 2006, at the Huntington Museum and Art Gallery, San Marino, California, from on or about February 3, 2007, until on or about April 29, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 10, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13578 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5503] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “From Casper David Friedrich to Gerhard Richter: German Paintings From Dresden” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “From Casper David Friedrich to Gerhard Richter: German Paintings from Dresden,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum's, Los Angeles, California, from on or about October 6, 2006, until on or about April 29, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 1, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13582 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5501] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Guercino: Mind to Paper” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Guercino: Mind to Paper,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, California, from on or about October 17, 2006, until on or about January 21, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 1, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13577 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5504] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Guercino: Stylistic Evolution in Focus” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the art object to be included in the exhibition “Guercino: Stylistic Evolution in Focus,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Timken Museum of Art, San Diego, California, from on or about October 13, 2006, until on or about January 7, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 1, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13581 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5505] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Magritte and Contemporary Art: The Treachery of Images” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Magritte and Contemporary Art: The Treachery of Images,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, from on or about November 19, 2006, until on or about March 4, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 10, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13580 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5499] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Robert Mapplethorpe and the Classical Tradition” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Robert Mapplethorpe and the Classical Tradition”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Guggenheim Hermitage Museum, Las Vegas, Nevada, from on or about September 25, 2006, until on or about April 8, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8052). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: August 10, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-13579 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Notice of Consideration of Standards SUMMARY: The Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA)is considering adopting for itself and the distributors of TVA power certain metering and interconnection standards. The standards being considered are the Time-based Metering & Communications (hereinafter called “Smart Metering”), Interconnection, and Net Metering standards listed in section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-617) as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58). The standards will be considered on the basis of their effect on conservation of energy, efficient use of facilities and resources, equity among electric consumers, and the objectives of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act. In addition, the Smart Metering standard will be considered in light of whether the benefits to the electric utility and its consumers are likely to exceed the costs of new metering and communications. Comments are requested from the public on whether TVA should adopt these standards or any variations on them. DATES: *Smart Metering Standard:* Written comments on this standard must be received by December 1, 2006. *Interconnection and Net Metering Standards:* Written comments on these standards must be received by March 1, 2007. *Workshops:* concerning the standards to be considered will be held throughout the Valley during October 2006 at times and locations to be announced. The times and locations will be posted on the Web at *http://www.tva.com/purpa* and will also be announced through various media outlets. In addition, to be placed on a list to receive notice of workshop times and locations from TVA via mail, please write to the contact person designated below. ADDRESSES: *Written comments should be sent to:* PURPA Standards Hearings, Attn: Carl Seigenthaler, Tennessee Valley Authority, One Century Place, 26 Century Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37214. Comments may also be submitted via the Web, at *http://www.tva.com/purpa* , and, as described below, through various means provided at the workshops. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Seigenthaler, Tennessee Valley Authority, One Century Place, 26 Century Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37214,
(615)232-6070. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Of the standards being considered, the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-617) as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) requires that TVA consider these standards. Accordingly, data, views, and comments are requested from the public on the Smart Metering, Interconnection, and Net Metering standards. Comments on variations in any of the standards, as well as views for or against their adoption are welcome. The three standards are being presented in order to initiate consideration and obtain the public's views on the need and desirability of such standards. Determinations on the appropriateness of the standards will be made by the TVA Board of Directors. The TVA Board will also determine, what, if any, standards included in this notice will be implemented by TVA for itself and the distributors of TVA power. *Standards:* The standards about which a determination will be made are:
(1)*Smart Metering.* A. Not later than 18 months after the enactment of these standards, each electric utility shall offer each of its customer classes, and provide individual customers upon customer request, a time-based rate schedule under which the rate charged by the electric utility varies during different time periods and reflects the variance, if any, in the utility's costs of generating and purchasing electricity at the wholesale level. The time-based rate schedule shall enable the electric consumer to manage energy use and cost through advanced metering and communications technology. B. The types of time-based rate schedules that may be offered under the scheduled referred to in subparagraph
(A)include, among others: i. Time-of-use pricing whereby electricity prices are set for a specific time period on an advance or forward basis, typically not changing more often than twice a year, based on the utility's cost of generating and/or purchasing such electricity at the wholesale level for the benefit of the consumer. Prices paid for energy consumed during these periods shall be pre-established and known to consumers in advance of such consumption, allowing them to vary their demand and usage in response to such prices and manage their energy costs by shifting usage to a lower cost period or reducing their consumption overall; ii. Critical peak pricing whereby time-of-use prices are in effect except for certain peak days, when prices may reflect the costs of generating and/or purchasing electricity at the wholesale level and when consumers may receive additional discounts for reducing peak period energy consumption; iii. Real-time pricing whereby electricity prices are set for a specific time period on an advance or forward basis, reflecting the utility's cost of generating and/or purchasing electricity at the wholesale level, and may change as often as hourly; and iv. Credits for consumers with large loads who enter into pre-established peak load reduction agreements that reduce a utility's planned capacity obligations. C. Each electric utility subject to subparagraph
(A)shall provide each customer requesting a time-based rate with a time-based meter capable of enabling the utility and customer to offer and receive such rate, respectively. D. In a State that permits third-party marketers to sell electric energy to retail electric consumers, such consumers shall be entitled to receive the same time-based metering and communications device and service as a retail electric consumer of electric utility. E. Notwithstanding subsections
(b)and
(c)of section 2622 of Title 16 of the United States Code, each State regulatory authority shall, not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this paragraph conduct an investigation in accordance with section 2625(i) of said title and issue a decision whether it is appropriate to implement the standards set out in subparagraphs
(A)and (C).
(2)*Interconnection.* Each utility shall make available, upon request, interconnection service to any electric consumer that the electric utility serves. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “interconnection service” means service to an electric consumer under which an on-site generating facility on the consumer's premises shall be connected to the local distribution facilities. Interconnection services shall be offered based upon the standards developed by the Institute of Electric and Electronics Engineers: IEEE Standard 1547 for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems, as they may be amended from time to time. In addition, agreements and procedures shall be established whereby the services are offered shall promote current best practices of interconnection for distributed generation, including but not limited to practices stipulated in model codes adopted by associations of state regulatory agencies. All such agreements and procedures shall be just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
(3)*Net metering.* Each utility shall make available upon request net metering service to any electric consumer that the electric utility serves. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “net metering service” means service to an electric consumer under which electric energy generated by that electric consumer from an eligible on-site generating facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities may be used to offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric consumer during the applicable billing period. *Procedures:* Written data, views, and comments on the standards are requested from the public. All material relating to the Smart Metering standard must be received by 5 p.m. EST on December 1, 2006. All material relating to the Interconnection and the Net Metering standard must be received by March 1, 2007. All materials received by TVA before these designated times will be considered by TVA. Written statements of TVA staff concerning the standards will be made part of the official record at least 30 days before the date the record closes, at which time they will be made available to the public on request. In order to assist interested consumers in preparing written data, views, and comments for the record, TVA will sponsor a series of five
(5)workshops which will provide various means by which interested parties can be informed about the standards set out in this notice. These workshops will be held throughout the Valley during September and October 2006 at times and locations to be announced via the various means discussed above. A transcribing service will be onsite to record any oral comments one wishes to have placed in the record. In addition, workshop attendees will have the opportunity to submit their comments to the record by accessing computers available at the workshops for such purposes. The official record will consist of all oral comments submitted and transcribed at the workshops, all material submitted electronically, and all written materials submitted within the time set forth above. A summary of the record will be prepared by TVA staff and will be transmitted to the TVA Board of Directors along with the complete record. The record will be used by the Board in making the determinations required by section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-617) as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) and in fulfilling its obligation under the Tennessee Valley Authority Act. Individual copies of the record will be available to the public at cost of reproduction. Copies will also be kept on file for public inspection at the following locations: Tennessee Valley Authority, One Century Place, 26 Century Boulevard, Nashville, Tennessee,
(615)232-6070; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee
(423)751-0011; and on the Web at *http://www.tva.com/purpa* . Nicholas P. Goschy, Jr., Assistant General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-13557 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Transfer Airport Property at Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark, From the City of Clinton, OK, to the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, a State Agency AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Request To Release Airport Property. SUMMARY: the FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the transfer of airport land at Clinton-Sherman Airpark under the provisions of Title 49 United States Code, Section 47153. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Edward Agnew, Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-630, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0630. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Grayson Bottom, City Manager, City of Clinton, and Mr. Bill Khourie, Executive Director, Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority at the following addresses: City of Clinton, P.O. Box 1177, Clinton, Oklahoma 73601. Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, 501 Sooner Drive, Burns Flat, Oklahoma 73624. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Bell, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Arkansas/Oklahoma Airports Development Office, ASW-630, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-. The request to transfer airport property may be reviewed in person at this same location. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the request to transfer property at Clinton-Sherman Airpark under the provisions of the Act. On August 10, 2006, the FAA determined that the request to transfer property at Clinton-Sherman Airpark submitted by the City of Clinton and Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority met agency requirements. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no later than October 1, 2006. The following is a brief overview of the request: On October 9, 2003, the City of Clinton, Oklahoma requested the transfer of surface rights of the Clinton-Sherman Airpark to the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority (OSIDA). The transfer will enable the State of Oklahoma to expend state funds for capital improvements on the Clinton-Sherman Airpark. OSIDA completed an environmental assessment and FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on May 5, 2006. On June 12, 2006, FAA issued OSIDA Launch Site Operator License LSO 06-010. The subject airport land is subject to covenants prescribed in the release indenture dated June 25, 1971 and grant agreement covenants. The application specifies OSIDA will continue operating the Clinton-Sherman Airport as a public airport for the benefit of civil aviation. Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the City of Clinton City Manager's Office. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 11, 2006. Kelvin L. Solco, Manager, Airports Division. [FR Doc. 06-6989 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
14 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 109-102
  • Pub. L. 104-208
  • 45 CFR 1170
  • 532 U.S. 275
  • 45 CFR 1110
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 10 CFR 71
  • 10 CFR 2.714(d)
  • 88 Stat. 1244
  • 10 CFR 52
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • 79 Stat. 985
  • Pub. L. 95-617
  • Pub. L. 109-58
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 3506
C.F.R.§ 1910.7
U.S.C.§ 7701
U.S.C.§ 2000d
Fed. Reg.Rules and Regulations
U.S.C.§ 553
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 73.37
C.F.R.§ 2.202
SCOTUS532 U.S. 275
Pub. L.Pub. L. 109-102
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-208
Cites 41 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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