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 · 2006-08-18 · Food and Drug Administration, HHS · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Final rule

49,957 words·~227 min read·/register/2006/08/18/06-7044

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13—M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 172 [Docket No. 2002F-0316 (formerly 02F-0316)] Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption; Bacteriophage Preparation AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is amending the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of a bacteriophage preparation on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products as an antimicrobial agent against *Listeria monocytogenes* . This action is in response to a petition filed by Intralytix, Inc. DATES: This rule is effective August 18, 2006. Submit written or electronic objections and requests for a hearing by September 18, 2006. See section VII of this document for information on the filing of objections. The Director of the Office of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of certain publications in new 21 CFR 172.785 as of August 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit objections and requests for a hearing, identified by Docket No. 2002F-0316 (formerly 02F-0316), by any of the following methods: *Electronic Submissions* Submit electronic objections in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. *Written Submissions* Submit written objections in the following ways: • FAX: 301-827-6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of objections, FDA is no longer accepting objections submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic objections by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described in the *Electronic Submissions* portion of this paragraph. *Instructions* : All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No(s). and Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)(if a RIN number has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All objections received will be posted without change to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting objections, see the “Objections” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket* : For access to the docket to read background documents or objections received, go to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raphael A. Davy, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 301-436-1272. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In a notice published in the **Federal Register** of July 22, 2002 (67 FR 47823), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 2A4738) had been filed by Intralytix, Inc., c/o Lewis & Harrison, 122 C St. NW., suite 740, Washington, DC 20001, now represented by Keller & Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW., suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of a mixture of bacteriophages 1 (phages) as an antimicrobial agent against *Listeria monocytogenes* ( *L. monocytogenes* ) on foods, including fresh meat, meat products, fresh poultry, and poultry products. On December 18, 2003, the petitioner amended the petition to limit the petitioned use to ready-to-eat
(RTE)meat and poultry products only. 2 1 Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria only. 2 Ready-to-eat products, as used in this final rule, are defined in 9 CFR 430.1. The food additive consists of a mixture of equal proportions of six individually purified phages. The petitioner's rationale for incorporating multiple phages in one formulation is to minimize the possibility of *L. monocytogenes* developing a resistance to the additive. Each phage in the additive is specific against various *L. monocytogenes* strains, including those strains known to be associated with foodborne illness (e.g., *L. monocytogenes* strains, serotypes 1/2a, 4b and 1/2b). The phages are lytic 3 double-stranded DNA phages. The petitioner has characterized each phage with respect to physical properties and other appropriate identifying factors (e.g., host range, structural protein profile, and DNA sequence of complete genome 4 ). 3 Lytic bacteriophages lyse (destroy) their host bacteria as a normal part of their life cycle without integrating into the host genome. 4 Genome means the genetic content of a cell or virus. In the manufacturing process, each phage contained in the additive is separately produced using a strain of *L. monocytogenes* that can serve as a host to the specific phage. The host *L. monocytogenes* strain is first cultured in microbiological media and the specific phage is added to the culture when a specified cell density is achieved. After phage multiplication, which results in lysis (destruction) of host cells, the phage is purified by use of multiple filtration steps (to remove bacteria and their components). The six phages produced by this process are then blended in phosphate buffered saline solution to formulate the additive. The six phages contained in the additive have been deposited with the American Type Culture Collection 5 (ATCC). 5 ATCC is a nonprofit bioresource center that maintains deposits of bacteria and bacteriophages among other biological materials. Their primary mission is to acquire, authenticate, preserve, develop, and distribute biological material. The phage preparation will be used as an antimicrobial agent to control *L. monocytogenes* in the production of RTE meat and poultry products. The phage preparation is directly sprayed on the surface of the RTE food articles at a level of approximately 1 milliliter
(mL)of the preparation per 500 square centimeters (cm 2 ) of food surface area just prior to packaging. II. Determination of Safety Under the general safety standard in section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 348), a food additive cannot be approved for a particular use unless a fair evaluation of the data available to FDA establishes that the additive is safe for that use. FDA's food additive regulations (21 CFR 170.3(i)) define safe as “a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.” In evaluating the safety of the petitioned substance, FDA considered the following factors in determining the safety of the proposed food additive use:
(1)The safety of the six phages constituting the food additive;
(2)the safety of potential residues from *L. monocytogenes* used in the manufacture of the food additive and the need for limits related to their levels;
(3)whether undesirable genes are potentially carried by the food additive; and
(4)the need for additional identity and safety specifications. A. Safety of the Petitioned Use of the Phage Preparation Phages infect only bacteria, rather than mammalian or plant cells. 6 Moreover, phages are ubiquitous and humans are routinely exposed to them at high levels through food, water, and the environment without adverse effect. 7 Phages also are a part of the normal microbial population of the human gut. 8 However, the petitioner's bacteriophages are specific to *L. monocytogenes* only. Therefore, FDA concludes that the food additive under consideration does not present a toxicological concern for use in food as proposed by the petitioner based upon the explanations provided in the following sections (Refs. 1 and 3). 6 T.D. Brock and M.T. Madigan, 1998, *Biology of Microorganisms* , 5th edition; Prentice-Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, NJ. 7 Bergh, O., K.Y. Borsheim, G. Bratbak, and M. Heldal, 1989, High abundance of viruses found in aquatic environments, *Nature* , vol. 340 (10): 467-468. 8 Breitbart et al., 2003; *Journal of Bacteriology* 185 (20): 6220-6223. B. Safety Evaluation of Potential Residue Components From *L. monocytogenes* FDA considered the possibility that the proposed food additive may contain *L. monocytogenes* components as residues from use of the organism as host for phage multiplication in the manufacturing process. Such residues may include the toxin Listeriolysin O (LLO). Potential residues of *L. monocytogenes* other than LLO do not present a safety concern (Ref. 1). Based on our review of scientific literature on the pathogenicity of *L. monocytogenes* (Ref. 1), FDA finds that LLO is the only substance known to be toxic that may potentially be present as a residue in this food additive after the manufacturing process. LLO was not detected in the finished food additive within the assay limits of detection of 5 hemolytic units 9 (HU)/ml, and the petitioner provided information on the purification process used in the production of the food additive as additional assurance that LLO would not be present at detectable levels in the finished food additive. Nevertheless, the agency has calculated a worst-case exposure to LLO from consumption of food products treated with the phage preparation. Assuming LLO is present at a maximum level of 5 HU/ml in the additive, the worst-case exposure to LLO for males aged 20 years or more that consume RTE foods treated with the additive at the maximum intended use level is 52 HU/person/day (HU/p/d) at the mean and 104 HU/p/d at the 90th percentile. Males aged 20 years or more represent the worst-case scenario because this population group consumes the highest amount of food intended to be treated with the additive (Ref. 2). In this safety evaluation, FDA reviewed all available information on the identity, toxicity, and the stability of LLO. Even if LLO were present at the level of 5 HU/ml, this level does not present a toxicological concern for the following reasons (Ref. 1): 9 1 HU of LLO is equal to one nanogram of protein (as reported in Geoffroy, C. et al. 1987, Purification, Characterization, and Toxicity of the Sulfhydryl-Activated Hemolysin Listeriolysin O from *Listeria monocytogenes* , Infection and Immunity, vol. 55(7): pp. 1641-1646). 1. Inactivation of LLO by Cholesterol The toxicity of LLO has been shown to be significantly reduced (by as much as 200- to 2000-fold) following pre-incubation of LLO with added cholesterol *in vitro* (Ref. 1). Since the phage preparation will be used on meat and poultry products and these products normally contain significant (milligram) amounts of cholesterol, then any residual amounts of LLO at levels no greater than 5 HU/ml that may be present in the additive are likely to be inactivated by the cholesterol. 2. pH and LLO Activity Studies show that LLO activity is lost or significantly decreased in acidic (low pH of less than 4) environments (Ref. 1). Residual amounts of LLO, if present, are likely to be inactivated by the low pH (less than 4) within the human stomach. 3. Inactivation of Orally Consumed LLO by Human Defense Mechanisms *In vivo* studies demonstrate that both normal intestinal microflora and cell-mediated immunity reactions in the intestines inhibit LLO (Ref. 1). These defense mechanisms provide some protection against low incidental oral exposures to LLO (no greater than 5 HU/ml). Additionally, at these levels, LLO is expected to be rapidly and irreversibly degraded by proteolytic enzymes that may be presented in the diet or in the stomach. Thus, LLO at these residual levels would not pose a toxic threat to humans. Considering all of the above factors, FDA concludes that potential residues of LLO that may be found in the food additive are negligible (5 HU/ml or less) and do not pose a safety concern for the use of the additive as an antimicrobial agent on RTE meat and poultry products. Although LLO was not detected in the food additive, the agency concludes that a specification is necessary to ensure that LLO is not present in detectable amounts to ensure the purity and safe use of the petitioned food additive. Thus, the agency is including in this regulation a specification of not more than 5 HU/ml for LLO (the limit of detection for the method). C. Undesirable Genes (Bacterial Toxin Genes) Potentially Carried by Phages Lysogenic phages, as opposed to those that are lytic, have the capacity to integrate into the host genome and may facilitate transfer of toxin or drug resistance genes between bacterial cells. FDA has determined that the phages contained in the petitioned food additive are lytic based on the petitioner's information on host lysis characteristics and on genomic analysis of each phage (Ref. 4). Therefore, FDA concludes that the use of this food additive would not result in the spread of toxin or drug genes. D. The Need for Other Specifications We are also including specifications for potency, absence of undesirable genes, phage titer 10 , absence of *L. monocytogenes* and other microbiological pathogens, and total organic carbon (Ref. 2). These specifications ensure the identity and safe use of the additive. 10 A term that refers to the number of phage particles per milliliter of phage solution. III. Other Considerations FDA recognizes that while this rule is issued under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, use of the ingredient must also comply with the Federal Meat Inspection Act or the Poultry Products Inspection Act, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In particular, those statutes provide that the ingredient must be suitable for its intended use. FDA recognizes that there may be meat or poultry products considered RTE for which use of the additive may not be suitable within the meaning of those statutes. This regulation addresses only the safety standard under section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and does not address requirements for suitability administered by the USDA. IV. Conclusion FDA reviewed data in the petition and other available relevant material to evaluate the safety of the use of a phage preparation as an antimicrobial agent against *L. monocytogenes* on RTE meat and poultry products. Based on this information, the agency concludes that the proposed use of the additive is safe. Therefore, the regulations in part 172 (21 CFR part 172) should be amended as set forth in this document. In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the information contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). As provided in § 171.1(h), the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection. V. Environmental Impact The agency has previously considered the environmental effects of this rule as announced in the notice of filing for FAP 2A4738 (67 FR 47823). No new information or comments have been received that would affect the agency's previous determination that there is no significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required. VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. VII. Objections Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic objections. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents are to be submitted and are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. VIII. References The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. 1. Memorandum dated June 3, 2005, from Division of Petition Review, Toxicology Group I, Tina Walker, to Raphael Davy, DPR, entitled “Safety Review of LMP-102 TM as an antimicrobial agent in ready-to-eat foods, fresh meat, meat products, fresh poultry, and poultry products.” 2. Memorandum dated April 11, 2005, from Division of Petition Review, Chemistry Review Group, Hyoung Lee, to Regulatory Group II, R. Davy, entitled “FAP 2A4738 (MATS#1137 M 2.3), Petition for the use of LMP-102 TM —a mixture of several monoclonal bacteriophages as an antimicrobial agent in ready-to-eat meat and poultry, Submissions of 10/25/04, 1/18/05, 1/25/05, and 2/18/05.” 3. Memorandum dated February 1, 2006, from Division of Petition Review, Toxicology Group I, Tina Walker, to Raphael Davy, DPR, entitled “Addendum to the June 3, 2005 Final Toxicology Memorandum: Additional toxicological evaluation of the potential allergenicity/immunotoxicity of the *Listera* bacteriophage, LMP-102 TM .” 4. Memorandum dated June 1, 2005, from Division of Biotechnology and GRAS Notice Review, Negash Belay, to Raphael A. Davy, Division of Petition Review, entitled “Revised FAP 2A4738.” List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 172 Food additives, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 172 is amended as follows: PART 172—FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED FOR DIRECT ADDITION TO FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 172 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 348, 371, 379e. 2. Section 172.785 is added to subpart H to read as follows: § 172.785 Listeria -specific bacteriophage preparation. The additive may be safely used as an antimicrobial agent specific for *Listeria monocytogenes* ( *L. monocytogenes* ) in accordance with the following conditions:
(a)*Identity* .
(1)The additive consists of a mixture of equal proportions of six different individually purified lytic-type (lacking lysogenic activity) bacteriophages (phages) specific against *L. monocytogenes* .
(2)Each phage is deposited at, and assigned an identifying code by, a scientifically-recognized culture collection center, and is made available to FDA upon request.
(3)The additive is produced from one or more cell cultures of *L. monocytogenes* in a safe and suitable nutrient medium.
(b)*Specifications* .
(1)The additive achieves a positive lytic result (OD <sup>600</sup> ≤ 0.06) when tested against any of the following *L. monocytogenes* isolates available from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC): ATCC 35152 (serogroup 1/2a), ATCC 19118 (serogroup 4b), and ATCC 15313 (serogroup 1/2b). The analytical method for determining the potency of the additive entitled “Determination of Potency of LMP-102 TM ,” dated October 9, 2003, and printed by Intralytix, Inc., is incorporated by reference. The Director of the Office of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or you may examine a copy at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Library, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/i br_locations.html.*
(2)The mean phage titer of each monophage in the additive is 1 x 10 9 plaque forming units (PFU)/ml. The analytical method for determining phage titer entitled “Method to Determine Lytic Activity/Phage Titer,” dated November 6, 2001, and printed by Intralytix, Inc., is incorporated by reference. Copies are available at locations cited in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3)The phages present in the preparation must not contain a functional portion of any of the toxin-encoding sequences described in 40 CFR 725.421(d). No sequences derived from genes encoding bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA are present in the complete genomic sequence of the phages.
(4)*L. monocytogenes* toxin, listeriolysin O (LLO), is not greater than 5 hemolytic units (HU)/ml. The analytical method for determining LLO entitled “Quantitation of Listeriolysin O Levels in LMP-102 TM ,” dated September 27, 2004, and printed by Intralytix, Inc., is incorporated by reference. Copies are available at locations cited in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5)The additive is negative for *L. monocytogenes* . The modified version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's method for determining *L. monocytogenes* entitled “LMP-102 TM *Listeria monocytogenes* Sterility Testing,” dated May 24, 2004, and printed by Intralytix, Inc., is incorporated by reference. Copies are available at locations cited in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(6)The additive is negative for gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria capable of growing in commonly used microbiological media (e.g., Luria-Bertani
(LB)medium), including *Escherichia coli* , *Salmonella* species and coagulase-positive *Staphylococci* , as determined by the “Method to Determine Microbial Contamination,” dated July 11, 2003, and printed by Intralytix, Inc., is incorporated by reference. Copies are available at locations cited in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(7)Total organic carbon
(TOC)is less than or equal to 36 mg/kg. The analytical method for determining TOC entitled “Determination of Total Organic Carbon by Automated Analyzer,” dated March 30, 2001, and printed by Intralytix, Inc., is incorporated by reference. Copies are available at locations cited in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c)*Conditions of use* . The additive is used in accordance with current good manufacturing practice to control *L. monocytogenes* by direct application to meat and poultry products that comply with the ready-to-eat definition in 9 CFR 430.1. Current good manufacturing practice is consistent with direct spray application of the additive at a rate of approximately 1 mL of the additive per 500 cm 2 product surface area. Dated: August 3, 2006. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E6-13621 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 29 CFR Part 100 Debt Collection Procedures AGENCY: National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). ACTION: Interim Rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB)is issuing interim regulations with a request for comments concerning the procedures used to collect debts that are owed to the NLRB. These interim regulations conform to the legislative changes enacted in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996
(DCIA)and the amended procedures presented in the Federal Claims Collection Standards
(FCCS)issued by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). These regulations are intended to improve the NLRB's collection of debts owed to the United States. DATES: This interim rule is effective on August 18, 2006. Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [RIN Number], by any of the following methods: • *Mail:* For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions, mail to Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary, 1099 14th Street NW., Room 11610, Washington, DC 20570. • *E-mail: Lester.Heltzer@nlrb.gov.* Include [RIN Number] in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* Office of the Executive Secretary Fax Number:
(202)273-4270. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the NLRB's name and the Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Room 11610, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20570-0001, Telephone
(202)273-1067, e-mail address *Lester.Heltzer@nlrb.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On April 26, 1996, the Debt Collection Improvement Act
(DCIA)of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) was enacted. This Act enhances the Federal Government's debt collection activities. The purposes of the Act are—
(1)To maximize collections of delinquent debts owed to the Government by ensuring quick action to enforce recovery of debts and the use of all appropriate collection tools,
(2)To minimize the costs of debt collection by consolidating related functions and activities and using interagency teams,
(3)To reduce losses arising from debt management activity by requiring proper screening of potential borrowers, aggressive monitoring of all accounts, and sharing of information within and among Federal agencies,
(4)To ensure that the public is fully informed of the Federal Government's debt collection policies and that debtors are aware of their obligations to repay amounts owed to the Federal Government,
(5)To ensure that debtors have all appropriate due process rights, including the ability to verify, challenge, and compromise claims, and access to administrative appeals procedures that are both reasonable and protect the interests of the United States,
(6)To encourage agencies, when appropriate, to sell delinquent debt, particularly debts with underlying collateral, and
(7)To rely on the experience and expertise of private sector professionals to provide debt collection services to Federal agencies. This act provides that any nontax debt or claim owed to the United States that has been delinquent for a period of 180 days shall be referred to the Department of the Treasury or a Treasury-designated collection center for appropriate action to collect or terminate collection of the claim or debt. The DCIA provides Treasury with new collection tools, including the authority to offset any Federal agency's payment to a vendor to satisfy that vendor's debt. The Federal Claims Collection Standards
(FCCS)(31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900, 901, 902, 903, and 904) were revised November 22, 2000 (65 FR 70390). The revised FCCS clarify and simplify Federal debt collection procedures and reflect changes under the DCIA of 1996 and the General Accounting Office Act of 1996. The revised FCCS reflect legislative changes to Federal debt collection procedures enacted under the DCIA of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-358, as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The revised FCCS provide agencies with greater latitude to adopt agency-specific regulations, tailored to the legal and policy requirements applicable to various types of Federal debt, to maximize the effectiveness of Federal debt collection procedures. Treasury and the DOJ published the revised FCCS as a joint final rule under Chapter IX, Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations superseded the FCCS regulations codified at 4 CFR Chapter II parts 101-105. The revised FCCS prescribe standards for Federal agency use in the administrative collection, offset, compromise, and suspension or termination of collection activity for civil claims for money, funds, or property as defined by 31 U.S.C. 3701(b), unless specific Federal agency statutes or regulations apply to such activities, or as provided for by Title 11 of the United States Code when the claims involve bankruptcy. The revised FCCS also prescribe standards for referring debts to the DOJ for litigation. These regulations cover the collection of debts such as court costs, vendor overpayments, travel-related expenses, etc. However, currently, the majority of the debts owed to the NLRB are payroll debts owed by current or former employees, the collection of which are covered under 5 U.S.C. 5514. II. Administrative Procedures Act Because this rule involves rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Nonetheless, this is an interim rulemaking, with a provision for a 60-day public comment period. The NLRB will review all comments received during the comment period and will consider any modifications that appear appropriate in adopting these rules as final. III. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for procedural rules, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) pertaining to regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply to these rules. However, even if the Regulatory Flexibility Act were to apply, the NLRB certifies that this interim rule will not have a significant impact on small businesses, state and local governments and geographical regions, health, safety, and the environment. IV. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Because the interim rule relates to agency procedure and practice, the NLRB has determined that the Congressional review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* ) do not apply. V. Paperwork Reduction Act This interim rule does not impose any reporting or record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 100 Administrative practice and procedures, debt collection procedures. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the National Labor Relations Board amends 29 CFR part 100 to add Subpart F, Debt Collection Procedures. PART 100—ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 100 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Section 6, National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 141, 156). Subpart A is also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7301. Subpart B is also issued under the Inspector General Act of 1976, as amended by the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988, 5 U.S.C. ap3; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a). Subpart D is also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2672; 28 CFR part 14. Subpart E is also issued under 29 U.S.C. 794. Subpart F is also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3711 and 3716-3719, as amended, 31 CFR part 285, 31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900-904. 2. Subpart F is added as follows: Subpart F—Debt Collection Procedures Sec. 100.601 Purpose and scope. 100.602 Definitions. 100.603 Debts that are covered. 100.604 Monetary limitations on NLRB's authority. 100.605 Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval. 100.606 No private rights created. 100.607 Form of payment. 100.608 Subdivision of claims or debts. 100.609 Administrative collection of claims. 100.610 Written demand for payment. 100.611 Reporting claims or debts. 100.612 Disputed claims or debts. 100.613 Contracting for collection services. 100.614 Collection by administrative offset. 100.615 Authorities other than offset. 100.616 Payment collection. 100.617 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs. 100.618 Bankruptcy claims. 100.619 When a debt may be compromised. 100.620 Finality of a compromise. 100.621 When collection action may be terminated or suspended. 100.622 Termination of collection action. 100.623 Exception to termination. 100.624 Discharge of indebtedness; reporting requirements. 100.625 Referral of a claim to the Department of Justice. Subpart F—Debt Collection Procesures § 100.601 Purpose and scope. This part prescribes standards and procedures for officers and employees of the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB)who are responsible for the collection and disposition of certain debts owed to the United States, as further defined below. The authority for this part is the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; 31 U.S.C. 3711 and 3716 through 3719, as amended; The Federal Claims Collection Standards, 31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900-904; and Office of Management and Budget Circular A- 129. The activities covered include: the collection of claims of any amount; compromising claims; suspending or terminating the collection of claims; referring debts that are more than 180 days delinquent to the Department of the Treasury for collection action; and the referral of debts of more than $100,000 (exclusive of any interest and charges) to the Department of Justice for litigation. § 100.602 Definitions. For the purpose of this subpart, the following definitions will apply: *Administrative Offset* means withholding money payable by the United States Government (including money payable by the United States Government on behalf of a State Government) to, or held by the Government for, a person to satisfy a debt the person owes the United States Government. *Centralized offset* means the offset of Federal payments through the Treasury Offset Program to collect debts that creditor agencies have certified pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3716(c), 3720A(a) and applicable regulations. The term “centralized offset” includes the Treasury Offset Program's processing of offsets of Federal payments disbursed by disbursing officials other than the Department of the Treasury. *Claim or debt* means an amount of money, funds, or property that has been determined by an agency official to be owed to the United States by a person, organization, or entity, except another Federal agency. For the purposes of *administrative offset* under 31 U.S.C. 3716, the terms *claim* and *debt* include an amount of money, funds, or property owed by a person to a State (including past-due support being enforced by a State), the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. *Cross-servicing* means that the Department of the Treasury or another debt collection center is taking appropriate debt collection action on behalf of one or more Federal agencies or a unit or sub-agency thereof. *Debtor* means an individual, organization, group, association, partnership, or corporation indebted to the Unites States, or the person or entity with legal responsibility for assuming the debtor's obligation. *Delinquent* refers to the status of a debt and means a debt has not been paid by the date specified in the initial written demand for payment or applicable contractual agreement with the NLRB, unless other satisfactory payment arrangements have been made by that date. If the debtor fails to satisfy obligations under a payment agreement with the NLRB after other payment arrangements have been made, the debt becomes a delinquent debt. *Payment in full* means payment of the total debt due the United States, including any interest, penalty, and administrative costs of collection assessed against the debtor. *Recoupment* is a special method for adjusting debts arising under the same transaction or occurrence. For example, obligations arising under the same contract generally are subject to recoupment. § 100.603 Debts that are covered.
(a)The procedures covered by this part generally apply to claims for payment or debts that:
(1)Result from certain internal management activities of the NLRB; or
(2)Are referred to the NLRB for collection.
(b)The procedures covered by this part do not apply to:
(1)A debt arising from, or ancillary to, any action undertaken by or on behalf of the NLRB or its General Counsel in furtherance of efforts to ensure compliance with the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., including but not limited to actions involving the collection of monies owed for back pay and/or other monetary remedies provided for in Board orders or ancillary court proceedings. (Regulations concerning the collection of these types of debts are found in 29 CFR part 102, subparts U and V.);
(2)A debt involving criminal actions of fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any other person having an interest in the claim;
(3)A debt based in whole or in part on conduct in violation of the antitrust laws;
(4)A debt under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(5)A debt between Federal agencies. Federal agencies should attempt to resolve interagency claims by negotiation in accordance with Executive Order 12146 (3 CFR, 1980 Comp., pp. 409-412);
(6)A debt once it becomes subject to salary offset under 5 U.S.C. 5514; or
(7)A debt involving bankruptcy which is covered by Title 11 of the United States Code.
(c)Debts involving criminal actions of fraud, false claims, misrepresentation, or that violate antitrust laws will be promptly referred to the Department of Justice. Only the Department of Justice has the authority to compromise, suspend, or terminate collection activity on such debts. However, at its discretion, the Department of Justice may return a debt to the NLRB for further handling. § 100.604 Monetary limitations on NLRB's authority. The NLRB's authority to compromise a debt or to suspend or terminate collection action on a debt covered by these procedures is limited by 31 U.S.C. 3711(a) to claims that:
(a)Have not been referred to another Federal Agency for further collection actions; and
(b)Do not exceed $100,000 (exclusive of any interest) or such higher amount as the Attorney General shall from time to time prescribe for purposes of compromise or suspension or termination of collection activity. § 100.605 Information collection requirements: OMB approval. This part contains no information collection requirements, and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). § 100.606 No private rights created.
(a)The failure of the NLRB to include in this part any provision of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), 31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900-904, does not prevent the NLRB from applying these provisions.
(b)A debtor may not use the failure of the NLRB to comply with any provision of this part or of the FCCS as a defense. § 100.607 Form of payment. These procedures are directed primarily at the recovery of money or, when a contractual basis exists, the NLRB may demand the return of specific property or the performance of specific services. § 100.608 Subdivision of claims or debts. A debt may not be subdivided to avoid the monetary ceiling established by 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2) and 29 CFR 100.604. § 100.609 Administrative collection of claims. The NLRB shall aggressively collect all claims or debts. These collection activities will be undertaken promptly and follow up action will be taken as appropriate in accordance with 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.1. § 100.610 Written demand for payment.
(a)The NLRB will promptly make written demand upon the debtor for payment of money or the return of specific property. The written demand for payment will be consistent with the requirements of 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.2. The date by which payment is due to avoid any late charges will be 60 days from the date that the demand letter is mailed or hand-delivered.
(b)The failure to state in a letter of demand a matter described in 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.2 is not a defense for a debtor and does not prevent the NLRB from proceeding with respect to that matter.
(c)When necessary, to protect the Government's interest, written demand may be preceded by other appropriate action, including immediate referral for litigation. It may be appropriate to contact a debtor or his representative or guarantor by other means (telephone, in person, etc.) to discuss prompt payment and/or the debtor's ability to repay the debt, and to inform the debtor of his rights and the effect of nonpayment or delayed payment.
(d)When the NLRB learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, the NLRB will cease collection action immediately unless it has been determined that the automatic stay imposed at the time of filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362 has been lifted or is no longer in effect. § 100.611 Reporting claims or debts.
(a)In addition to assessing interest, penalties, and administrative costs pursuant to 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.9, the NLRB may report a debt that has been delinquent for 90 days to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
(b)The information the NLRB discloses to a consumer reporting agency is limited to—
(1)Information necessary to establish the identity of the individual debtor, including name, address, and taxpayer identification number;
(2)The amount, status, and history of the debt; and
(3)The NLRB activity under which the debt arose. § 100.612 Disputed claims or debts.
(a)A debtor who disputes a debt should provide the NLRB with an explanation as to why the debt is incorrect within 60 days from the date the initial demand letter was mailed or hand-delivered. The debtor may support the explanation by affidavits, canceled checks, or other relevant evidence.
(b)If the debtor's arguments appear to have merit, the NLRB may waive the interest period pursuant to 29 CFR 100.617(c) pending a final determination of the existence or the amount of the debt.
(c)The NLRB may investigate the facts concerning the dispute and, if deemed necessary, arrange for a conference at which the debtor may present evidence and any arguments in support of the debtor's position. § 100.613 Contracting for collection services. The NLRB may contract for collection services in order to recover delinquent debts only if the debts are not subject to the DCIA requirement to transfer claims or debts to the Treasury for debt collection services, e.g., claims or debts less than 180 days delinquent. However, the NLRB retains the authority to resolve disputes, compromise claims, suspend or terminate collection action, and initiate enforced collection through litigation. When appropriate, the NLRB shall contract for collection services in accordance with guidance and standards contained in 31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900-904. § 100.614 Collection by administrative offset.
(a)*Application.*
(1)The NLRB may administratively undertake collection by centralized offset on each claim that is liquidated or certain in amount in accordance with the guidance and standards in 31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900-904 and 5 U.S.C. 5514.
(2)This section does not apply to those debts described in 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.3(a)(2).
(3)Unless otherwise provided for by contract or law, debts or payments that are not subject to administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716 may be collected by administrative offset under the common law or other applicable statutory authority.
(4)Generally, administrative offset of payments under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 3716 may not be conducted more than 10 years after the Government's right to collect the claim or debt first accrued.
(b)*Mandatory Centralized Offset.* The NLRB is required to refer past due legally enforceable, nontax debts that are over 180 days delinquent to the Department of the Treasury for collection by centralized administrative offset. A debt is legally enforceable if there has been a final determination by the NLRB that the debt, in the amount stated, is due and there are no legal bars to collection action. Debts under this section will be referred and collected pursuant to procedures in 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.3(b).
(c)*NLRB administrative offset.* The NLRB, in order to refer a delinquent debt to the Department of the Treasury for administrative offset, adopts the administrative offset procedures as prescribed by 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.3.
(d)*Non-centralized administrative offset.* Generally, non-centralized administrative offsets are ad hoc case-by-case offsets that the NLRB would conduct at its own discretion, internally or in cooperation with the agency certifying or authorizing payments to the debtor. Non-centralized administrative offset is used when centralized administrative offset is not available or appropriate to collect past due legally enforceable, nontax delinquent debts. In these cases, the NLRB may make a request directly to a payment-authorizing agency to offset a payment due a debtor to collect a delinquent debt. The NLRB adopts the procedures in 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.3(c) so that it may request the Department of the Treasury or any other payment authorizing agency to conduct a non-centralized administrative offset.
(e)*Requests to OPM to offset a debtor's anticipated or future benefit payments under the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Federal Employees Retirement System.* Upon providing OPM written certification that a debtor has been afforded the procedures provided for in this section, the NLRB will request that OPM offset a debtor's anticipated or future benefit payments under the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
(Fund)in accordance with regulations codified at 5 CFR 831.1801-831.1808 and the Federal Employees Retirement System (System) in accordance with regulations codified at 5 CFR 845.401-845.408. Upon receipt of a request, OPM will identify and “flag” a debtor's account in anticipation of the time when the debtor requests or becomes eligible for payments from the Fund or System. This will satisfy any requirement that offset be initiated prior to the expiration of the time limitations referenced in 29 CFR 100.614(a)(4).
(f)*Review Requirements.* For purposes of this section, whenever the NLRB is required to afford a debtor a review within the Agency, the NLRB shall provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for a review of the record in accordance with 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.3(e). The NLRB will provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for an oral hearing in accordance with 31 CFR 285.11(f) when the debtor requests reconsideration of the debt, and the NLRB determines that the question of the indebtedness cannot be resolved by review of the written record, for example, when the validity of the debt turns on an issue of credibility or veracity. § 100.615 Authorities other than offset.
(a)*Administrative Wage Garnishment.* The NLRB is authorized to collect debts from a debtor's wages by means of administrative wage garnishment in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3720D and 31 CFR 285.11. This section adopts and incorporates all of the provisions of 31 CFR 285.11 concerning administrative wage garnishment, including the hearing procedures described in 31 CFR 285.11(f). The NLRB may use administrative wage garnishment to collect a delinquent debt unless the debtor is making timely payments under an agreement to pay the debt in installments.
(b)This section does not apply to Federal salary offset, the process by which the NLRB collects debts from the salaries of Federal employees. § 100.616 Payment collection.
(a)The NLRB shall make every effort to collect a claim in full before it becomes delinquent, but will consider arranging for payment in regular installments consistent with 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.8 if the debtor furnishes satisfactory evidence that he is unable to pay the debt in one lump sum. Except for a claim described in 5 U.S.C. 5514, all installment payment arrangements must be in writing and require the payment of interest, penalties, and other administrative costs. If possible, the installment payments should be sufficient in size and frequency to liquidate the debt in three years or less.
(b)If a debt is paid in one lump sum after it becomes delinquent, the NLRB shall impose charges for interest, penalties, and administrative costs as specified in 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.9.
(c)Payment of a debt must be made by check, electronic funds transfer, draft, or money order payable to the National Labor Relations Board. Payment should be made to the National Labor Relations Board, Finance Branch, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20570, unless payment is—
(1)Made pursuant to arrangements with the Department of Justice;
(2)Ordered by a Court of the United States; or
(3)Otherwise directed in any other part of this chapter. § 100.617 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs.
(a)Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717, the NLRB shall assess interest, penalties, and administrative costs on debts owed to the United States Government. Interest, penalties, and administrative costs will be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.9.
(b)The NLRB shall waive collection of interest on a debt or any portion of the debt that is paid in full within 30 days after the date on which the interest began to accrue.
(c)The NLRB may waive interest during a period a disputed debt is under investigation or review by the NLRB. However, this additional waiver is not automatic and must be requested before the expiration of the initial 30-day waiver period. The NLRB may grant the additional waiver only if it finds merit in the explanation the debtor has submitted.
(d)The NLRB may waive collection of interest, penalties, and administrative costs if it finds that one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1)The debtor is unable to pay any significant sum toward the debt within a reasonable period of time;
(2)Collection of interest, penalties, and administrative costs will jeopardize collection of the principal of the debt;
(3)The NLRB is unable to enforce collection in full within a reasonable period of time by enforced collection proceedings; or
(4)Collection is not in the best interest of the United States, including when an administrative offset or installment agreement is in effect.
(e)The NLRB is authorized to impose interest and related charges on debts not subject to 31 U.S.C. 3717, in accordance with common law. § 100.618 Bankruptcy claims. When the NLRB learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed by a debtor, before proceeding with further collection action, the NLRB will immediately seek legal advice from the NLRB's Office of Special Counsel concerning the impact of the Bankruptcy Code on any pending or contemplated collection activities. After seeking legal advice from the NLRB's Office of Special Counsel, the NLRB will take any necessary action in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR Chapter IX § 901.2(h). § 100.619 When a debt may be compromised. The NLRB may compromise a debt not in excess of the monetary limitation in accordance with 31 CFR Chapter IX part 902 if it has not been referred to the Department of Justice for litigation. § 100.620 Finality of a compromise. An offer of compromise must be in writing and signed by the debtor. An offer of compromise that is accepted by the NLRB is final and conclusive on the debtor and on all officials, agencies, and courts of the United States, unless obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, the presentation of a false claim, or mutual mistake of fact. § 100.621 When collection action may be terminated or suspended. The NLRB may suspend or terminate collection action on a claim not in excess of the monetary limitation of $100,000 or such other amount as the Attorney General may direct, exclusive of interest, penalties, and administrative costs, after deducting the amount of partial payments or collections, if any, in accordance with the standards and reasons set forth in 31 Chapter IX Part CFR part 903. § 100.622 Termination of collection action. Before terminating collection activity, the NLRB will have pursued all appropriate means of collection and determined, based upon results of the collection activity, that the debt is uncollectible. Termination of collection activity ceases active collection of the debt. The termination of collection activity does not preclude the NLRB from retaining a record of the account for the purposes stated in 31 CFR Chapter IX §§ 903.3(b) and (c). § 100.623 Exception to termination. If a debt meets the exceptions described in 31 CFR Chapter IX § 903.4, the NLRB may refer it for litigation even though termination of collection activity may otherwise be appropriate. § 100.624 Discharge of indebtedness; reporting requirements. Before discharging a delinquent debt (also referred to as close out of a debt), the NLRB shall take all appropriate steps to collect the debt in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g), including, as applicable, administrative offset, tax refund offset, Federal salary offset, referral to the Treasury or Treasury-designated collection centers or private collection contractors, credit bureau reporting, wage garnishment, litigation, and foreclosure. Discharge of indebtedness is distinct from termination or suspension of collection activity and is governed by the Internal Revenue Code. When the NLRB determines that it will discharge a debt, it will do so in accordance with the provisions of 31 CFR Chapter IX § 903.5. § 100.625 Referral of a claim to the Department of Justice. The NLRB shall promptly refer debts that are subject to aggressive collection activity and that cannot be compromised, or debts on which collection activity cannot be suspended or terminated, to the Department of Justice for litigation. Debts shall be referred as early as possible, consistent with the standards contained if 31 CFR Chapter IX parts 900-904 and, in any event, well within the period for initiating timely lawsuits against the debtors. The NLRB will make every effort to refer delinquent debts to the Department of Justice within one year of the date such debts became delinquent. Dated: Washington, DC, August 15, 2006. By Direction of the Board. Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-13688 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7545-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD08-06-027] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Galveston, TX AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Galveston Causeway Railroad Bascule Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 357.2 west of Harvey Locks, at Galveston, Galveston County, Texas. This deviation provides for two
(2)three-hour closures to conduct scheduled maintenance to the drawbridge. DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, Room 1313, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(504)671-2128. The Bridge Administration Branch of the Eighth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2129. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Burlington Northern Railway Company has requested a temporary deviation in order to perform necessary maintenance on the rail joints of the Galveston Causeway Railroad Bascule Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 357.2 west of Harvey Locks, at Galveston, Galveston County, Texas. The maintenance is essential for the continued safe operation of the railroad bridge. The bridge currently opens on signal in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. This temporary deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. until 10 a.m. and from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2006. This temporary deviation was originally published to occur on Wednesday, August 16, 2006; however, Burlington Northern Railway Company has requested to reschedule to Tuesday, August 29, 2006. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 10 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation at the site of the bridge consists mainly of tows with barges and some recreational pleasure craft. Due to prior experience, as well as coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. No alternate routes are available. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: August 8, 2006. Marcus Redford, Bridge Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-13665 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 138 [USCG-2005-21780] RIN 1625-AA98 New Oil Pollution Limits of Liability for Vessels—Delaware River Protection Act of 2006 Amendment to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of policy. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the enactment of statutory changes that will affect the financial responsibility of vessel owners and operators for oil pollution from their vessels. The Delaware River Protection Act of 2006 amends limits of liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) for discharges and substantial threats of discharge of oil from vessels. This statutory change will also result in future changes to Coast Guard regulations related to proof of financial responsibility by vessel owners and operators for discharges of oil from vessels. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Benjamin White at 202-493-6863. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose The limits of liability for oil removal costs and damages that result from discharges or substantial threats of discharge of oil from vessels, under OPA 90 (33 U.S.C. 2704), were amended by the enactment of the Delaware River Protection Act of 2006 (the Act), title VI of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241). The purpose of this notice is— 1. To alert the public of the amended limits of liability for vessels; 2. To notify the public that existing Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR part 138 entitled “Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels)” remain in effect until amended; and 3. To notify the public that a rulemaking project will be initiated to amend the regulations in 33 CFR part 138 to reflect the amended liability limits. The following table shows the original and amended limits of liability by vessel type: Limits of Liability If the vessel is a— The original limit of liability limit was the greater of— The amended limits of liability are the greater of— Tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons with a single hull, double sides only, or double bottom only $1,200 per gross ton or $10,000,000 $3,000 per gross ton or $22,000,000. Tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons with a single hull, double sides only, or double bottom only $1,200 per gross ton or $2,000,000 $3,000 per gross ton or $6,000,000. Tank vessel greater than 3,000 gross tons with a double hull $1,200 per gross ton or $10,000,000 $1,900 per gross ton or $16,000,000. Tank vessel less than or equal to 3,000 gross tons with a double hull $1,200 per gross ton or $2,000,000 $1,900 per gross ton or $4,000,000. Any vessel other than a tank vessel $600 per gross ton or $500,000 $950 per gross ton or $800,000. Vessel owners, operators and demise charterers that are responsible parties under OPA 90 are liable to the amended limits as follows— • The amended limits for any tank vessel are effective for an oil discharge or substantial threat of discharge that occurs on or after October 9, 2006. • The amended limits for any other vessel are effective for an oil discharge or substantial threat of discharge that occurs on or after July 11, 2006. The changes to the limits of liability created by the Act will result in changes to the requirements for proof of financial responsibility found in the existing “Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels)” regulations at 33 CFR part 138. In general, the responsible party for any vessel over 300 gross tons using any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or any vessel using the waters of the exclusive economic zone to transship or lighter oil destined for a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, must establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility (i.e., ability to pay) sufficient to meet the applicable liability limit. The Coast Guard intends to make changes to existing regulations resulting from the Act. We anticipate initiating a rulemaking that will require vessel owners and operators to provide evidence of financial responsibility to the amended limits of liability, as described above, within 120 days after the final rule is published in the **Federal Register** . In the interim, the levels of financial responsibility enforceable by the Coast Guard are the total applicable amounts currently found at 33 CFR 138.80(f). If you have any questions regarding this notice, please submit them to: Mr. Benjamin White, National Pollution Fund Center, 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 22203. Dated: July 31, 2006. Jan P. Lane, Director, National Pollution Funds Center. [FR Doc. E6-12936 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-06-146] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Celebrate Erie, Erie, PA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing the navigable waters of Presque Isle Bay during the Celebrate Erie Fireworks on August 20, 2006. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of Presque Isle Bay, Erie, Pennsylvania. DATES: This rule will be effective from 9:45 p.m. (local) until 10:30 p.m. (local) on August 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-06-146 and are available for inspection or copying at: U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd, Buffalo, New York 14203, between 8 a.m. (local) and 4 p.m. (local), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, at
(716)843-9573. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register.** Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event, and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event. Background and Purpose Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones and the explosive hazard of fireworks, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined fireworks launches in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, alcohol use, and debris falling into the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the locations of the fireworks launch platforms will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risk. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading and launching of a fireworks display in conjunction with Celebrate Erie. The fireworks display will occur between 9:45 p.m. (local) and 10:30 p.m. (local) on August 20, 2006. The safety zone consists of all navigable waters of Presque Isle Bay in an 800-foot radius around a point at position: 42°08′20″ N, 080°05′29″ W, at the end of Dobbins Landing Pier, Erie, PA. (DATUM: NAD 83). The size of this zone was determined using the National Fire Prevention Association guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents. All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of Presque Isle Bay during the activated safety zone. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone is only in effect for a very limited duration from 9:45 p.m. (local) until 10:30 p.m. (local) on the day of the event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of energy effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-146 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-146 Safety Zone; Celebrate Erie, Erie, PA.
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: all navigable waters of Presque Isle Bay in an 800-foot radius around a point at position: 42°08′0″ N, 080°05′29″ W, at the end of Dobbins Landing Pier, Erie, PA. (DATUM: NAD 83).
(b)*Effective time and date.* This section is effective from 9:45 p.m. (local) until 10:30 p.m. (local) on August 20, 2006.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: August 8, 2006. S. J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E6-13678 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD09-06-147] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; March of Dimes Paddle Erie, Erie, PA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing the navigable waters of the Presque Isle. Bay during the Kayak Event on August 26, 2006. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the hazards associated with kayaks crossing a main shipping channel during the event. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessel traffic from a portion of Presque Isle Bay in Erie, PA. DATES: This rule will be effective from 8 a.m. (local) until 12 p.m. (local) on August 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD09-06-147 and available for inspection or copying at: U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd, Buffalo, New York 14203, between 8 a.m. (local) and 4 p.m. (local), Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Tracy Wirth, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, at
(716)843-9573. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The permit application was not received in time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this event, and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property. The Coast Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to this event. Background and Purpose Temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of participants from the hazards associated with kayak events. Based on accidents that have occurred in other Captain of the Port zones, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined kayak events in close proximity to watercraft pose significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels and congested waterways could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the kayak events will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risk. Discussion of Rule A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants and spectators during the setup and while the kayak events are taking place in conjunction with the March of Dimes Paddle Erie. The kayak events will occur between 8 a.m. (local) until 12 p.m. (local) on August 26, 2006. The safety zone consists of all navigable waters of Presque Isle Bay bounded by a line connecting the following sets of coordinates: 42°07′56″ N, 080°06′28″ W, then north to 42°09′09″ N, 080°06′37″ W, then southwest to 42°07′27″ N, 080°08′11″ W, then east to the point of origin, in Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. [DATUM: NAD 83]. The size of this zone was determined using the COTP approval of the race course including guidelines and local knowledge concerning wind, waves, and currents. All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones' activation. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of Presque Isle Bay Lake during the activated safety zone. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone is only in effect for a very limited duration from 8 a.m. (local) until 12 p.m. (local) on the day of the event. Vessel traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of energy effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This event establishes a safety zone therefore paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. A new temporary § 165.T09-147 is added to read as follows: § 165.T09-147 Safety Zone; March of Dimes Paddle Erie, Erie, PA
(a)*Location.* The following area is a temporary safety zone: All navigable waters of Presque Isle Bay bounded by a line connecting the following sets of coordinates: 42°07′56″ N, 080°06′28″ W, then north to 42°09′09″ N, 080°06′37″ W, then southwest to 42°07′27″ N, 080°08′11″ W, then east to the point of origin, in Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. [DATUM: NAD 83].
(b)*Effective time and date.* This section is effective from 8 a.m. (local) until 12 p.m. (local) on August 26, 2006.
(c)*Regulations.*
(1)In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2)This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3)The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
(4)Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. Dated: August 8, 2006. S.J. Ferguson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo. [FR Doc. E6-13677 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0153; FRL-8211-1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revised Definition of “Volatile Organic Compound” AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. This revision amends Virginia regulations by updating the definition of “volatile organic compound”. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on September 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0153. All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helene Drago,
(215)814-5796, or by e-mail at *drago.helene@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On April 5, 2006 (71 FR 17050), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision updated the definition of “volatile organic compound” found in Virginia Regulations. The NPR proposed approval of the updated definition of “volatile organic compound”. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on January 12, 2006 . II. Summary of SIP Revision On January 12, 2006, the Commonwealth submitted a SIP revision request which amends the definition of “volatile organic compound” found under 9 VAC 5-10-20. The amendment revises the definition of the term “volatile organic compound” to exclude four compounds that have been demonstrated to be less reactive: 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-methoxy-propane, 3-ethoxy -1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl) hexane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane, and methyl formate. The definition of VOC has also been revised in order to partially exclude t-butyl acetate. The amendment states that the compound, t-butyl acetate, should be considered to be a VOC for record keeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory requirements that apply to VOCs and should be uniquely identified in emission reports, but it is not a VOC for purposes of VOC emission standards, emission limitations, or content requirements. This definition update is consistent with Federal regulations. III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege”' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information
(1)that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment;
(2)that are prepared independently of the assessment process;
(3)that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or
(4)that are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. IV. Final Action EPA is approving the revision of the definition of “volatile organic compound” which was submitted on January 12, 2006 as a revision to the Virginia SIP. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 17, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve revisions to the Virginia SIP that update the definition of “volatile organic compound” may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 8, 2006. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by adding an entry for Chapter 10, Section 5-10-20 after the five existing entries for 5-10-20 to read as follows: § 52.2420 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation (9 VAC 5) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] Chapter 10 General Definitions [Part I] * * * * * * * 5-10-20 Terms Defined 5/04/05 8/18/06 [Insert page number where the document begins] Revised definition of “volatile organic compound”. * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-13614 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA-0010; FRL-8211-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Amendments to Existing Regulation Provisions Concerning Maintenance, Nonattainment, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These revisions consist of amendments to state regulation provisions concerning maintenance, nonattainment, and prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD)areas for incorporation into the Virginia SIP. EPA is approving these SIP revisions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective on September 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2005-VA- 0010. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,
(215)814-2034, or by e-mail at *wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 12, 2006 (71 FR 33669), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of formal SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia on August 15, August 17, August 19, September 28, and October 3, 2005. These SIP revisions consist of amendments to existing regulation provisions concerning maintenance, nonattainment, and PSD areas found in 9 VAC 5, Chapter 20 of Virginia's regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution. II. Summary of SIP Revisions The August 15, 2005 SIP revision amends 9 VAC 5-20-203, Maintenance areas, 9 VAC 5-20-204, Nonattainment areas, and 9 VAC 5-20-205, PSD areas, to reflect the redesignation of the Hampton Roads ozone nonattainment area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (62 FR 34408, June 26, 1997). The August 17, 2005 SIP revision amends 9 VAC 5-20-203, Maintenance areas, 9 VAC 5-20-204, Nonattainment areas, and 9 VAC 5-20-205, PSD areas, to reflect the redesignation of the Richmond ozone nonattainment area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 61237, November 17, 1997). The August 19, 2005 SIP revision amends 9 VAC 5-20-204, Nonattainment areas, and 9 VAC 5-20-205, PSD areas, to reflect the first repeal of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (63 FR 31087, June 5, 1998), which removed the White Top Mountain area from the list of 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas and from the list of PSD areas. The White Top Mountain area was later reinstated as a rural transport (marginal) ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard on July 20, 2000 (65 FR 45182), as a result of a 1999 court decision challenging EPA's previous determinations on the applicability of the 1-hour ozone standard. The September 28, 2005 SIP revision amends 9 VAC 5-20-204, Nonattainment areas, and 9 VAC 5-20-205, PSD areas, by incorporating the new 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas into the list of Virginia's nonattainment areas found in 9 VAC 5-20-204, and revising the list of PSD areas found in 9 VAC 5-20-205. Because the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked, effective June 15, 2005, the revision also adds a provision to 9 VAC 5-20-204, which removed the severe area program in the Northern Virginia ozone nonattainment area as the area was constituted under the 1-hour standard. Because the severe area program imposed more stringent requirements than those required under section 184 of the CAA in that area, Virginia did not need to have a separate new source review
(NSR)program meeting the section 184 requirements. EPA proposed approval of this revision (71 FR, 33670, June 12, 2006), contingent upon the Commonwealth of Virginia implementing the NSR program required under section 184 of the CAA in Virginia's portion of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). On July 13, 2006 (71 FR 39570), EPA published a final rulemaking implementing the NSR program required under section 184 of the CAA in Virginia's portion of the OTR. It should be noted that since the September 28, 2005 SIP revision submittal, EPA has redesignated the Fredericksburg (70 FR 76165, December 23, 2005) and Shenandoah National Park (71 FR 24, January 3, 2006) areas to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Other specific requirements pertaining to 9 VAC 5, Chapter 20 of Virginia's regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR. III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege”' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information
(1)that are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment;
(2)that are prepared independently of the assessment process;
(3)that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or
(4)that are required by law. On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law,Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding ( 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.” Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law. IV. Final Action EPA is approving the amendments to existing regulations pertaining to nonattainment, maintenance, and PSD areas found in 9 VAC 5 Chapter 20, submitted on August 15, 17, 19, September 28, and October 3, 2005, as revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia SIP. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . This rule is not a ‘major rule’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 17, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving amendments to Virginia's existing regulation provisions concerning maintenance, nonattainment, and PSD areas, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 8, 2006. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(c)is amended by revising the entries for Chapter 20, sections 5-20-203, 5-20-204, and 5-20-205 to read as follows: § 52.2420 Identification of plan.
(c)* * * EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation (9 VAC 5) Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] * * * * * * * Chapter 20 General Provisions [Part II] * * * * * * * 5-20-203 Air Quality Maintenance Areas
(AQMA)01/01/98, 04/01/98 08/18/06 [Insert page number where the document begins] 5-20-204 Nonattainment Areas 01/01/98, 04/01/98, 01/01/99, 08/25/04, 01/12/05 08/18/06 [Insert page number where the document begins] 5-20-205 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas 01/01/98, 04/01/98, 01/01/99, 08/25/04 08/18/06 [Insert page number where the document begins] * * * * * * * [FR Doc. E6-13615 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-8210-9] National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List; Technical Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Technical Correction of final partial deletion of the South Andover Salvage Yards Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. SUMMARY: On September 15, 1998 (63 FR 49321), EPA published a “Notice of intent to delete Operable Unit 2 of the South Andover Salvage Yards site from the National Priorities List; request for comments,” and on October 28, 1998 (63 FR 57608), a “Final Rule; notice of deletion for Operable Unit 2 of the South Andover Salvage Yards Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).” The EPA is publishing this Technical Correction to the October 28, 1998 final notice of deletion due to errors that were published in that notice and in the National Priorities List at 40 CFR part 300, Appendix B. After review of the final notice of deletion and the National Priorities List, EPA is publishing this Technical Correction today to change the word “removing” in the October 28, 1998 final notice of deletion to the word “revising” and to amend 40 CFR part 300, Appendix B by adding the South Andover Site, Andover, Minnesota, and inserting a “P” in the Notes
(a)column for the South Andover Site, Andover, Minnesota. EPA will place a copy of the final partial deletion package in the site repositories. DATES: *Effective Date:* This Technical Correction of the direct final action is effective as of August 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comprehensive information on the Site, as well as the comments that were received during the comment period are available at: Don deBlasio, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA , P19J, 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL,
(312)886-4360 or 1-800-621-8431. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gladys Beard, State NPL Deletion Process Manager, U.S. EPA (SR-6J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604,
(312)886-7253 or 1-800-621-8431. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Information Repositories:* Repositories have been established to provide detailed information concerning this decision at the following address: U.S. EPA Region V Library, 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604,
(312)353-5821, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.; Andover City Hall, 1685 N. W. Crosstown Blvd., Andover, MN 55303. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: August 9, 2006. Norman Niedergang, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region V. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended under Minnesota “MN” by adding the entry for “South Andover” to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1.—General Superfund Section State Sitename City/County (Notes) a * * * * * * * MN South Andover Site Andover P * * * * * * * a * * * P=Sites with partial deletion(s). [FR Doc. E6-13611 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket No. FEMA-7939] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If FEMA receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the **Federal Register** on a subsequent date. DATES: *Effective Dates:* The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or the NFIP servicing contractor. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William H. Lesser, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2807. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the **Federal Register** . In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. *National Environmental Policy Act.* This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. *Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. *Regulatory Classification.* This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. *Executive Order 13132, Federalism.* This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.* This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. *Paperwork Reduction Act.* This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 *et seq.* ; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. § 64.6 [Amended] The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State/location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region II New Jersey: Bayonne, City of, Hudson County 340218 July 25, 1975, Emerg; August 15, 1983, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp 08/16/2006 08/16/2006. Harrison, Town of, Hudson County 340221 March 17, 1976, Emerg; September 30, 1977, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Hoboken, City of, Hudson County 340222 April 22, 1975, Emerg; November 17, 1982, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Weehawken, Township of, Hudson County 340228 August 6, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1984, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Region III Pennsylvania: Armagh, Township of, Mifflin County 421879 February 6, 1976, Emerg; August 19, 1991, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Bratton, Township of, Mifflin County 421153 April 15, 1974, Emerg; December 15, 1978, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Brown, Township of, Mifflin County 420683 August 16, 1974, Emerg; August 19, 1991, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Burnham, Borough of, Mifflin County 420684 February 9, 1973, Emerg; February 15, 1978, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Decatur, Township of, Mifflin County 421880 December 2, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Derry, Township of, Mifflin County 421168 April 26, 1974, Emerg; September 1, 1978, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Granville, Township of, Mifflin County 421134 March 12, 1974, Emerg; August 15, 1978, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Kistler, Borough of, Mifflin County 420686 July 28, 1975, Emerg; September 15, 1977, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Lewistown, Borough of, Mifflin County 420687 November 17, 1972, Emerg; August 15, 1978, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. McVeytown, Borough of, Mifflin County 420688 May 20, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Menno, Township of, Mifflin County 421881 March 8, 1985, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Newtown Hamilton, Borough of, Mifflin County 420689 January 30, 1974, Emerg; February 15, 1978, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Oliver, Township of, Mifflin County 421882 August 29, 1975, Emerg; September 17, 1980, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Union, Township of, Mifflin County 421883 August 7, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Wayne, Township of, Mifflin County 421240 May 3, 1974, Emerg; March 2, 1981, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Region IV Kentucky: Cumberland, City of, Harlan County 210100 November 5, 1971, Emerg; March 15, 1977, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Harlan, City of, Harlan County 210102 October 29, 1971, Emerg; January 17, 1979, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Loyall, City of, Harlan County 215189 December 3, 1971, Emerg; April 6, 1973, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Lynch, City of, Harlan County 210104 January 14, 1975, Emerg; July 2, 1979, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Wallins Creek, City of, Harlan County 215192 December 7, 1971, Emerg; March 2, 1973, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. Region VII Missouri: Monett, City of, Barry County 290023 September 23, 1974, Emerg; April 15, 1981, Reg; August 16, 2006, Susp ......do Do. *-do- =Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: August 10, 2006. Michael K. Buckley, Deputy Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-13613 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P 71 160 Friday, August 18, 2006 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 36 [Docket No. PRM-36-01] American National Standards Institute N43.10 Committee; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-36-01) submitted by the American National Standards Institute N43.10 Committee. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to provide relief from the requirements to have an operator present onsite whenever an irradiator is operated using an automatic product conveyor system and whenever product is moved into or out of the radiation room when an irradiator is operated in a batch mode. In addition, the petitioner requested relief from the requirement to have a person who has received training, described in the regulations, on how to respond to alarms onsite at a panoramic irradiator where static irradiations (no movement of the product) are occurring. ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments received, and NRC's letter to the petitioner may be examined at NRC Public Document Room, Public File Area Room O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. These documents also may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the rulemaking Web site. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to: *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Young, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
(301)415-5795, e-mail: *tfy@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition On September 15, 1998 (63 FR 49298), the NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking filed by the American National Standards Institute N43.10 Committee. The petitioner requested that NRC amend 10 CFR 36.65(a) and (b). *These regulations require that:*
(a)Both an irradiator operator and at least one other individual, who is trained on how to respond and prepared to promptly render or summon assistance if the access control alarm sounds, shall be present onsite:
(1)Whenever the irradiator is operated using an automatic product conveyor system; and
(2)Whenever the product is moved into or out of the radiation room when the irradiator is operated in a batch mode.
(b)At a panoramic irradiator at which static irradiations (no movement of the product) are occurring, a person who has received the training on how to respond to alarms described in § 36.51(g) must be onsite. *The petitioner suggested revisions to require that:*
(1)The operator and at least one other trained individual would be present onsite whenever it is necessary to enter the radiation room;
(2)An individual trained to respond to alarms would be available and prepared to promptly attend to alarms, emergencies, or abnormal event conditions at any time the irradiator is operating;
(3)If the individual is not onsite, automatic means of communication would be provided from the irradiator control system to the individual and the irradiator control system would be secured from unauthorized access and the console key would be secured from removal from the control console when the individual is not onsite;
(4)Inspection and maintenance for operability of the automatic communication system be completed; and
(5)A definition be provided in 10 CFR 36.2 for the term, “onsite.” Currently a licensee is required to maintain adequate coverage on all shifts of a continuously operating panoramic irradiator facility. However, the petitioner believes that based on domestic and international operating experience with panoramic irradiators, there is no significant benefit to safety from having the operator and an additional trained individual onsite as opposed to an individual being available to respond promptly from an offsite location. The petitioner believes the current cost for a licensee to employ individuals for continuous operation of the facility has a substantial impact on the expense associated with conducting business. The petitioner believes that revising the requirements as suggested above would result in cost containment without a reduction in safety. The petitioner believes that recent improvements in communications technology support the design of automated alert systems to provide offsite warning to an individual who could then respond through technologies such as pagers, cell and land-line telephones, remote process control monitoring, etc. The petitioner believes that remote response to alarms could require only slightly longer response time than if the responder were onsite. In its supporting information, the petitioner recognizes that during emergencies and abnormal events, human intervention is required to evaluate the situation and determine whether actions need to be taken and what specific action is required. The petitioner believes this evaluation can take place remotely, between the irradiator and an individual offsite. The petitioner also supports its position by stating that European irradiators of similar design and characteristics to those in the United States have had no incidents that can be traced to the practice of unattended operations. Public Comments on the Petition The notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking invited interested persons to submit comments. The NRC received one comment letter from the Manager of Technical Services, State of Ohio's Bureau of Radiation Protection. The commenter was generally in favor of granting the petition. However, the commenter noted that the problem with remote communication systems is that they are likely to fail or become overloaded under extreme conditions, although the probability of having two remote incidents (irradiator and communication systems) occurring at one time is highly improbable for the unattended operation of a panoramic irradiator. In addition, the commenter suggested that an onsite security guard or other non-operator personnel could be trained to summon assistance as required without needing the operator. The comments were considered in the development of the NRC's decision on this petition. Reasons for Denial *The NRC is denying the petition for the following two reasons:* 1. In February 1993, the NRC amended its regulations to add 10 CFR Part 36, “Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators,” to specify radiation safety requirements and licensing requirements for the use of licensed radioactive materials in irradiators. After the rule became effective, the NRC received numerous licensee event reports that described failures or non-functions of source mechanisms and related systems that needed intervention by personnel who had received training described in the regulations on how to respond to alarms. The information reported to the NRC from 1990 to 2006 about events at irradiator facilities indicates no reduction in the number of events or the nature of events. The NRC determined that the data on events do not support the petitioner's request or indicate that the requirements should be revised. Rather, the NRC continues to believe that there is a need for individuals to be onsite to evaluate and respond to such emergencies, as well as to ensure day-to-day radiation safety. 2. The NRC does not believe that reliance on an automated communication system to notify a remote human operator via an electronic mechanism provides the same level of safety as currently provided by an onsite operator and/or a second individual who is trained to respond to irradiator alarms. This issue was previously raised in comments on the proposed rule for 10 CFR Part 36. The Statements of Consideration
(SOC)for the final rule (58 FR 7715; February 9, 1993) state that, for 10 CFR 36.65, “a considerable number of comments objected to the proposed requirements as excessive.” A commenter suggested that an irradiator with an automatic conveyor system should be able to operate with only an operator present and an automatic telephone dialing device for responding to alarms. Another commenter suggested that the irradiator should be able to operate unattended but with an automatic telephone dialing device. The SOC state that the NRC did not accept either suggestion because the NRC believed that automatic conveyer systems have enough malfunctions to require that an operator be present at the site. In addition, the NRC believed that the operator should have some backup in case of problems. The petitioner has not provided a sufficient basis from which to conclude that this NRC judgement is no longer correct. Specifically, no new information has been provided by the petitioner that would warrant revising the existing regulations. The existing NRC regulations provide the basis for reasonable assurance that the common defense and security and public health and safety are adequately protected. For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this petition. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-13632 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25634; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-143-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an airworthiness authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information identified in the proposed AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. We are prototyping this process and specifically request your comments on its use. You can find more information in FAA draft Order 8040.2, “Airworthiness Directive Process for Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information,” which is currently open for comments at *http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs.* This streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all existing AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to follow our technical decision-making processes in all aspects to meet our responsibilities to determine and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. The comment period for this proposed AD is open for 30 days to allow time for comments on both the process and the AD content. In the future, ADs using this process will have a 15-day comment period, because the airworthiness authority and manufacturer have already published the documents on which we based our decision, making a longer comment period unnecessary. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, Docket No. FAA-2006-25634; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-143-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We are also inviting comments, views, or arguments on the new MCAI process. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has issued French Airworthiness Directive F-2005-157, dated September 14, 2005 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that the refined study of an in-service event has evidenced the need to perform a periodic test of pitch trim system 2. In the conditions of overriding the automatic pitch torque limiter, the clutch of the pitch trim servo-motor 1 is opened so that electric pitch trim system 1 will disconnect. The question is pending about the availability of the system 2 and its capability to take over the pitch trim function, particularly during a go-around. Failure of pitch trim system 2 to deflect the trimmable horizontal stabilizer
(THS)at maximum rate could result in loss of high-speed trim and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. The MCAI renders mandatory a periodic test to ensure the availability of the pitch trim system 2 and its possibility to deflect the THS at high speed of trim. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the docket. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated July 11, 2005. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product is manufactured outside the United States and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the State of Design's airworthiness authority has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We have examined the airworthiness authority's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on all products of this type design. We are issuing this proposed AD to correct the unsafe condition. Differences Between the Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These proposed requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 29 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work hour per product to do the periodic test and 3 work hours to do the repair and follow-on test, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work hour. Required parts would cost $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no change for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,320, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25634; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-143-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)by September 18, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus A300 aircraft, all certified models and all serial numbers, certificated in any category; except for Models A300 B4-203 and A300 B2-203 in forward facing crew cockpit certified configuration. Reason
(d)The refined study of an in-service event has evidenced the need to perform a periodic test of pitch trim system 2. In the conditions of overriding the automatic pitch torque limiter, the clutch of the pitch trim servo-motor 1 is opened so that electric pitch trim system 1 will disconnect. The question is pending about the availability of the system 2 and its capability to take over the pitch trim function, particularly during a go-around. Failure of pitch trim system 2 to deflect the trimmable horizontal stabilizer
(THS)at maximum rate could result in loss of high-speed trim and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. For such reason, this AD renders mandatory a periodic test to ensure the availability of the pitch trim system 2 and its possibility to deflect the THS at high speed of trim. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions except as stated in paragraph
(f)below:
(1)Within 250 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Perform an operational test of pitch trim system 2 in high speed of trim configuration and if system 2 does not function as specified in the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated July 11, 2005; before further flight, return the system to correct operating condition in accordance with the instructions of the service bulletin.
(2)The operational test, followed if necessary by the corrective action described in the paragraph above, is to be repeated at intervals not exceeding 1,000 flight hours in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated July 11, 2005. FAA AD Difference
(f)When complying with this AD, do the following: Although the Accomplishment Instructions of the referenced service bulletin describes procedures for submitting certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. Other FAA AD Provisions
(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Safety Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Notification of Principal Inspector:* Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3)*Return to Airworthiness:* When complying with this AD, perform FAA-approved corrective actions before returning the product to an airworthy condition. Related Information
(h)This AD is related to MCAI French airworthiness directive F-2005-157, dated September 14, 2005, which references Airbus Service Bulletin A300-22-0121, dated July 11, 2005, for information on required actions. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13647 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-25609; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-263-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series Airplanes Equipped With Rolls-Royce RB211-TRENT 800 Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the airplane flight manual to provide the flightcrew with new ground procedures for shedding core ice during long taxi periods in freezing fog. For airplanes unable to perform the shedding procedure after prolonged taxiing in freezing fog, this proposed AD would require certain investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD results from reports of engine surges and internal engine damage due to ice accumulation during extended idle thrust operation in ground fog icing conditions. We are proposing this AD to prevent internal engine damage due to ice accumulation and shedding, which could cause a shutdown of both engines, and result in loss of control of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)917-6500; fax
(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-25609; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-263-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We have received reports indicating that internal engine damage has occurred on certain Airbus Model A330-243, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 TRENT 700 engines. Investigations have revealed that the engines were damaged due to extended idle thrust operations in severe ground fog icing conditions in very low outside air temperatures and freezing fog. It was determined that sufficient ice built upon the stationary surfaces of the engine core and heat transfer from increasing the thrust for takeoff caused the ice to shed, which then impacted and damaged the blades of the compressor. Engine damage due to ice accumulation and shedding, if not corrected, could result in a dual engine shutdown and loss of control of the airplane. Similar Engine Models Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 TRENT 800 engines have a similar compressor design to the Rolls-Royce RB211 TRENT 700 engines installed on certain Airbus Model A330-243, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes. Therefore, those Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 TRENT 800 engines may be subject to the same unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the AFM to provide the flightcrew with new ground procedures for shedding core ice during long taxi periods in freezing fog as described previously. Additionally, we are proposing that, if takeoff is not accomplished during ground operations in freezing fog within 60 minutes total taxi time, before further flight, the engines must be manually de-iced in accordance with tasks 12-33-03-600-803 and 12-33-03-600-804 of Chapter 12-33-03 of the Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM). We are also proposing to require that, if the core ice shedding procedure is not accomplished within 45 minutes total taxi time in freezing fog, but takeoff can be achieved within 60 minutes total taxi time, that a borescope inspection for damage to the engine compressors be accomplished within 10 flights of that takeoff. Any repair must be performed before further flight. One acceptable method of accomplishing the borescope inspection is specified in tasks 72-00-00-200-801 and 72-00-00-200-802 of the Boeing 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM)Chapter 72. Costs of Compliance There are about 208 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 53 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $4,240, or $80 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing:** Docket No. FAA-2006-25609; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-263-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October 2, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 TRENT 800 engines. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports of engine surges and internal engine damage due to ice accumulation during extended idle thrust operation in ground fog icing conditions. We are issuing this AD to prevent internal engine damage due to ice accumulation and shedding, which could cause a shutdown of both engines, and result in loss of control of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)Revision
(f)Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the Boeing Model 777 Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)to include the following statements. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. “GROUND OPERATIONS IN FREEZING FOG When freezing fog is reported and
(a)the OAT is 0 degrees C to −6 degrees C then run up the engines to 50% N1 for 1 minute every 45 minutes taxi time, or
(b)the OAT is −7 degrees C to −13 degrees C then run up the engines to 59% N1 for 1 minute for every 45 minutes taxi time, or
(c)the OAT is colder than −13 degrees C and taxi time exceeds 45 minutes, there is no run-up procedure. Regardless of temperature, if the core ice shedding procedure described above is not accomplished within 45 minutes total taxi time in freezing fog, but takeoff can be achieved within 60 minutes total taxi time in freezing fog, takeoff is permitted. A borescope inspection is required within 10 flights. If takeoff is not accomplished within 60 minutes total taxi time, then manually de-ice the engines.”
(g)When a statement identical to that in paragraph
(f)of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Inspection for Ice
(h)If takeoff is not accomplished in freezing fog within 60 minutes total taxi time, before further flight, perform an inspection for ice of the variable inlet guide vanes (VIGV's), in accordance with Task 12-33-03-200-801 of the Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM); and inspect the low pressure compressor
(fan)for ice after engine operation in freezing fog, in accordance with Task 12-33-03-200-802 of Chapter 12-33-03, dated May 5, 2006, of the AMM.
(1)If no ice is detected, the time already completed in freezing conditions can be reset to zero for subsequent operation.
(2)If any ice is detected, before further flight, manually de-ice the engine core inlet in accordance with Task 12-33-03-600-803, of Chapter 12-33-03 of the AMM, dated May 5, 2006, or manually de-ice the engine by parking the aircraft in a heated hanger in accordance with Task 12-33-03-600-804 of Chapter 12-33-03 of the AMM, dated May 5, 2006. Borescope Inspection for Damage
(i)For airplanes on which the core ice shedding procedure is not accomplished within 45 minutes total taxi time, but that achieve takeoff within 60 minutes total taxi time in freezing fog, regardless of temperature during ground operations in freezing fog: Within 10 flight cycles after takeoff, perform a borescope inspection for damage of the compressor of both engines, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). One acceptable method of compliance is to perform the borescope inspection in accordance with Boeing Model 777 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Section 72, tasks 72-00-00-200-801 and 72-00-00-200-802, both dated May 5, 2006. If any damage is detected, repair before further flight in accordance with the AMM. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(3)An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 8, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-13649 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter VI Office of Postsecondary Education; Notice of Negotiated Rulemaking for Programs Authorized Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of establishment of negotiated rulemaking committee. SUMMARY: We announce our intention to establish up to four negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare proposed regulations under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Each committee will include representatives of organizations or groups with interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the proposed regulations. We also announce a series of four regional hearings, as detailed in the DATES section of this notice, where interested parties can suggest issues that should be considered for action by the negotiating committees. In addition, we request nominations for individual negotiators who represent key stakeholder constituencies that are involved in the student financial assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA to serve on these committees. DATES: We must receive your nominations for negotiators to serve on the committees on or before November 9, 2006. (See dates, times, and locations of regional hearings under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.) ADDRESSES: Please send your nominations for negotiators to Patty Chase, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8050, Washington, DC 20006, or by fax to Patty Chase at
(202)502-7874. You may also e-mail your nominations to: *Patty.Chase@ed.gov.* Those nominated will be notified via letter as to whether or not they have been selected as a negotiator as soon as the Department's review process is completed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the hearings and the nomination submission process: Patty Chase, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8050, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone:
(202)502-7905. For information about negotiated rulemaking in general: Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 8017, Washington, DC 20006. Telephone
(202)502-7526. You may also e-mail your questions about negotiated rulemaking to: *Wendy.Macias@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section for information about the hearings and the nomination submission process. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), requires that, before publishing any proposed regulations to implement programs under Title IV of the HEA, the Secretary obtain public involvement in the development of the proposed regulations. After obtaining advice and recommendations from the public, the Secretary must use a negotiated rulemaking process to develop the proposed regulations. We intend to develop proposed regulations by following the negotiated rulemaking procedures in section 492 of the HEA. We intend to select participants for the negotiated rulemaking committees from nominees of the organizations and groups that represent the interests significantly affected by the proposed regulations. To the extent possible, we will select from the nominees, individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA. Regulatory Issues We intend to conduct negotiated rulemaking to develop proposed regulations for the new Academic Competitiveness Grant
(ACG)and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) programs, which were added to Title IV of the HEA by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), Pub. L. 109-171. Interim final regulations for these programs, with an invitation to comment, were published in the **Federal Register** on July 3, 2006 (71 FR 37990). The interim final regulations will be used to administer these programs for the 2006-2007 award year. The Secretary may, for the 2007-2008 award year, amend the regulations, as appropriate, in response to comments received. The regulations for these programs that will be developed through negotiated rulemaking would be in effect for the third and subsequent years of implementation of these programs (that is, beginning July 1, 2008). Additionally, we expect to conduct negotiated rulemaking on any modifications to the regulations governing the Title IV programs generally that may be suggested as a result of the final report from the Secretary's Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The Commission plans to issue its report by mid-September. Therefore, the regulatory negotiation process could be used, to the extent possible, to address any recommendations for reducing regulatory burden or improving the administration of the Department's programs authorized by Title IV of the HEA. We also note that there are bills currently pending in Congress to reauthorize the HEA. If reauthorization of the HEA is completed prior to the first negotiating session, we will, to the extent practicable, also include on the negotiating agenda changes to the regulations that may be needed to reflect any new law that may be enacted. We also expect to conduct negotiated rulemaking on other regulatory issues. These issues may include: issues raised by the public during the regional hearings; issues resulting from changes made by the HERA, other than those relating to the ACG/National SMART Grant programs; and items that have been identified by the Department as needed to improve program administration and accountability. Structure of the Committees We anticipate having up to four negotiating committees based upon the nature of the topics to be negotiated. Each of the following committees will be organized as necessary depending upon the comments received as a result of this notice. One negotiating committee will focus on issues related to the ACG and National SMART Grant programs. A second committee would address issues related to the Federal student loan programs authorized by Title IV, Parts B, D, and E of the HEA. A third committee would address other programmatic, institutional eligibility and general provisions issues. This committee could address issues related to HEA Title IV Parts A (except for ACG and National SMART Grants), C, G, and H (except Subpart 2), as well as HEA Title II, Section 208(b)(2). A fourth committee would address accreditation issues (Title IV, Part H, Subpart 2). Our goal is to establish committees that will allow significantly affected parties to be represented while keeping the committees' size manageable. Nominations of individuals from coalitions of individuals and organizations representing the constituencies identified below are strongly encouraged. Moreover, the Department encourages nominations of individuals who are actively involved in administering the Federal programs that are the subject of these negotiated rulemaking sessions and who can represent the interests of groups that are significantly affected by the regulations. The committees may create subgroups on particular topics that would involve additional individuals who are not members of the committees. Individuals who are not selected as members of the committees will be able to attend the meetings, have access to the individuals representing their constituencies, and participate in informal working groups on various issues between the meetings. The committee meetings will be open to the public. The Department has identified the constituencies listed below as having interests that are significantly affected by the subject matter of the negotiated rulemaking process. The Department anticipates that individuals representing each of these constituencies will participate as members of one or more of the negotiated rulemaking committees. These constituencies are: Students; Legal assistance organizations that represent students; Financial aid administrators at institutions of higher education; Business officers and bursars at institutions of higher education; Institutional servicers (including collection agencies); Trustees; State higher education executive officers; Business and industry; Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III, Parts A and B and Title V of the HEA, which includes Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in Title III of the HEA; Two-year public institutions of higher education; Four-year public institutions of higher education; Private, non-profit institutions of higher education; Private, for-profit institutions of higher education; Guaranty agencies and guaranty agency servicers (including collection agencies); Lenders, secondary markets, and loan servicers; and Accrediting Agencies. In addition to these groups, the Department would like the following groups to be represented on the negotiating committee for the ACG and National SMART Grant program: K-12 public schools, including charter schools; Governors; Private schools and home schooled students; Registrars; Admissions officers; Parent organizations; and Organizations related to National SMART Grant majors. While an individual selected to represent a constituency may be a representative of a group, institution, or industry participant, the individual will be expected to represent the interests of the entire constituency on the committee and to confer with other individuals and representatives of groups within that constituency. Nominations should include: • The name of the nominee, the organization he or she works for, if any, and a description of the interests that he or she represents; • Evidence of support from individuals or groups of the constituency that he or she will represent; • The nominee's commitment that he or she will actively participate in good faith in the development of the proposed regulations; and • The nominee's contact information, including address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address. Schedule for Negotiations We anticipate that the negotiating committees will meet in the Washington, DC, area three times beginning in December 2006 and concluding no later than March 2007. The dates and locations of these meetings will be published in a subsequent notice in the **Federal Register** , as well as being posted on the Department's Web site at: *http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2006/index2006.html.* We will post the schedule for negotiations on our Web site. Each committee will use electronic mail to exchange documents and discuss proposals between meetings. The schedule will allow sufficient time for us to provide the public with a 60-day comment period for the proposed regulations resulting from the negotiated rulemaking process and sufficient time to address any issues raised in the comment period, while meeting the November 1 statutory deadline for publishing student financial assistance final regulations. Regional Hearings We will hold four public regional hearings for interested parties to discuss the agenda for the negotiated rulemaking sessions. These hearings will be held on: • September 19, 2006, at the University of California-Berkeley in Berkeley, California; • October 5, 2006, at the Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois; • November 2, 2006, at the Royal Pacific Hotel Conference Center in Orlando, Florida; and • November 8, 2006, at the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, DC. The regional hearings will be held from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. local time. Individuals desiring to present comments at the hearings are encouraged to do so. It is likely that each participant choosing to make a statement will be limited to five minutes. Individuals interested in making oral statements will be able to sign up to make a statement beginning at 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing at the Department's regional hearing on-site registration table on a first-come, first-served basis. If additional time slots remain, individuals may be given additional time to speak. If no time slots remain, the Department has reserved one additional hour at the end of the day for people who were not able to register to speak. The amount of time available will depend upon the number of individuals who request reservations. Speakers may also submit written comments. In addition, for anyone unable to attend any of the regional hearings, the Department will also accept written comments. You should send your comments to: Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 33184, Washington, DC 20033-3184. All comments must be received by November 9, 2006. The regional hearing sites are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Persons needing an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in alternative format), should notify the contact person for information about meetings listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in this notice in advance of the scheduled meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet any request we receive, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it. Further information on the regional hearing sites is available on *http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2006/index2006.html.* Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a. Dated: August 15, 2006. James F. Manning, Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E6-13642 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 55 [OAR-2004-0091; FRL-8211-3] Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update for California AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. ACTION: Proposed rule—Consistency Update. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (“COA”), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (“the Act”). The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS sources by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Ventura County APCD). The intended effect of approving the OCS requirements for the Ventura County APCD is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance with the requirements onshore. The change to the existing requirements discussed below is proposed to be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations and is listed in the appendix to the OCS air regulations. DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number OAR-2004-0091, by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 1. *E-mail:* *steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 2. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Allen, Air Division (Air-4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415)947-4120, *allen.cynthia@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background information A. Why Is EPA Taking This Action? On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55, 1 which established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in order to attain and maintain Federal and State ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all OCS sources offshore of the States except those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude. Section 328 of the Act requires that for such sources located within 25 miles of a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same as would be applicable if the sources were located in the COA. Because the OCS requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) requires that EPA update the OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore requirements. 1 The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and the preamble to the final promulgated September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further background and information on the OCS regulation. Pursuant to §§ 55.12 of the OCS rule, consistency reviews will occur
(1)at least annually;
(2)upon receipt of a Notice of Intent under §§ 55.4; or
(3)when a state or local agency submits a rule to EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in part 55. This proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of requirements submitted by the Ventura County APCD. Public comments received in writing within 30 days of publication of this document will be considered by EPA before publishing a final rule. Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan
(SIP)guidance or certain requirements of the Act. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP. II. EPA's Evaluation A. What Criteria Were Used To Evaluate Rules Submitted To Update 40 CFR Part 55? In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA reviewed the rules submitted for inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12 (e). In addition, EPA has excluded administrative or procedural rules, 2 and requirements that regulate toxics which are not related to the attainment and maintenance of federal and state ambient air quality standards. 2 Each COA which has been delegated the authority to implement and enforce part 55, will use its administrative and procedural rules as onshore. However, in those instances where EPA has not delegated authority to implement and enforce part 55, EPA will use its own administrative and procedural requirements to implement the substantive requirements. 40 CFR 55.14(c)(4). B. What Requirements Were Submitted To Update 40 CFR Part 55? 1. After review of the requirements submitted by the Ventura County APCD against the criteria set forth above and in 40 CFR part 55, EPA is proposing to make the following District requirements applicable to OCS sources: Rule No. Name Adoption or amended date 11 Definitions for Regulation II 03/14/06 26 New Source Review—General 03/14/06 26.1 New Source Review—Definitions 03/14/06 26.2 New Source Review—Requirements 03/14/06 26.3 New Source Review—Exemptions 03/14/06 26.6 New Source Review—Calculations 03/14/06 29 Conditions on Permits 03/14/06 III. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. *Union Electric Co.,* v. *U.S. EPA,* 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards ”(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Continental shelf, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: July 28, 2006. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Title 40 Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 55—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* ) as amended by Public Law 101-549. 2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(H) to read as follows: § 55.14 Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.
(e)* * *
(3)* * *
(ii)* * *
(H)*Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources.* Appendix A to Part 55—[Amended] 3. Appendix A to part 55 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(8) under the heading “California” to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 55—Listing of State and Local Requirements Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State California
(b)* * *
(8)The following requirements are contained in Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources: Rule 2 Definitions (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 5 Effective Date (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 6 Severability (Adopted 11/21/78). Rule 7 Zone Boundaries (Adopted 6/14/77). Rule 10 Permits Required (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 11 Definition for Regulation II (Adopted 3/14/06). Rule 12 Application for Permits (Adopted 6/13/95). Rule 13 Action on Applications for an Authority to Construct (Adopted 6/13/95). Rule 14 Action on Applications for a Permit to Operate (Adopted 6/13/95). Rule 15.1 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 10/12/93). Rule 16 BACT Certification (Adopted 6/13/95). Rule 19 Posting of Permits (Adopted 5/23/72). Rule 20 Transfer of Permit (Adopted 5/23/72). Rule 23 Exemptions from Permits (Revised 4/13/04). Rule 24 Source Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Emission Statements (Adopted 9/15/92). Rule 26 New Source Review (Adopted 3/14/06). Rule 26.1 New Source Review—Definitions (Adopted 3/14/06). Rule 26.2 New Source Review—Requirements (Adopted 3/14/06). Rule 26.3 New Source Review—Exemptions (Adopted 3/14/06). Rule 26.6 New Source Review—Calculations (Adopted 3/14/06). Rule 26.8 New Source Review—Permit To Operate (Adopted 10/22/91). Rule 26.10 New Source Review—PSD (Adopted 1/13/98). Rule 26.11 New Source Review—ERC Evaluation At Time of Use (Adopted 5/14/02). Rule 28 Revocation of Permits (Adopted 7/18/72). Rule 29 Conditions on Permits (Adopted 3/14/06). Rule 30 Permit Renewal (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 32 Breakdown Conditions: Emergency Variances, A., B.1., and D. only. (Adopted 2/20/79). Rule 33 Part 70 Permits—General (Adopted 10/12/93). Rule 33.1 Part 70 Permits—Definitions (Adopted 4/10/01). Rule 33.2 Part 70 Permits—Application Contents (Adopted 4/10/01). Rule 33.3 Part 70 Permits—Permit Content (Adopted 4/10/01). Rule 33.4 Part 70 Permits—Operational Flexibility (Adopted 4/10/01). Rule 33.5 Part 70 Permits—Time frames for Applications, Review and Issuance (Adopted 10/12/93). Rule 33.6 Part 70 Permits—Permit Term and Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/93). Rule 33.7 Part 70 Permits—Notification (Adopted 4/10/01). Rule 33.8 Part 70 Permits—Reopening of Permits (Adopted 10/12/93). Rule 33.9 Part 70 Permits—Compliance Provisions (Adopted 4/10/01). Rule 33.10 Part 70 Permits—General Rule 70 Permits (Adopted 10/12/93). Rule 34 Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 3/14/95). Rule 35 Elective Emission Limits (Adopted 11/12/96). Rule 36 New Source Review—Hazardous Air Pollutants (Adopted 10/6/98). Rule 42 Permit Fees (Adopted 4/12/05). Rule 44 Exemption Evaluation Fee (Adopted 9/10/96). Rule 45 Plan Fees (Adopted 6/19/90). Rule 45.2 Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted 8/4/92). Rule 47 Source Test, Emission Monitor, and Call-Back Fees (Adopted 6/22/99). Rule 50 Opacity (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 52 Particulate Matter-Concentration (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 53 Particulate Matter-Process Weight (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 54 Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 6/14/94). Rule 56 Open Burning (Revised 11/11/03). Rule 57 Incinerators (Adopted 1/11/05). Rule 57.1 Particulate Matter Emissions From Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 1/11/05). Rule 62.7 Asbestos—Demolition and Renovation (Adopted 6/16/92). Rule 63 Separation and Combination of Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78). Rule 64 Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 4/13/99). Rule 67 Vacuum Producing Devices (Adopted 7/5/83). Rule 68 Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 71 Crude Oil and Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/94). Rule 71.1 Crude Oil Production and Separation (Adopted 6/16/92). Rule 71.2 Storage of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 9/26/89). Rule 71.3 Transfer of Reactive Organic Compound Liquids (Adopted 6/16/92). Rule 71.4 Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, and Well Cellars (Adopted 6/8/93). Rule 71.5 Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/13/94). Rule 72 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). (Adopted 9/13/05). Rule 73 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). (Adopted 9/13/05). Rule 74 Specific Source Standards (Adopted 7/6/76). Rule 74.1 Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/12/91). Rule 74.2 Architectural Coatings (Adopted 11/13/01). Rule 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing (Revised 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04). Rule 74.6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers (Adopted 11/11/03—effective 7/1/04). Rule 74.7 Fugitive Emissions of Reactive Organic Compounds at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants (Adopted 10/10/95). Rule 74.8 Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Waste-water Separators and Process Turnarounds (Adopted 7/5/83). Rule 74.9 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (Adopted 11/8/05). Rule 74.10 Components at Crude Oil Production Facilities and Natural Gas Production and Processing Facilities (Adopted 3/10/98). Rule 74.11 Natural Gas-Fired Residential Water Heaters Control of NO <sup>X</sup> (Adopted 4/9/85). Rule 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers (Adopted 9/14/99). Rule 74.12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products (Adopted 11/11/03). Rule 74.15 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 11/8/94). Rule 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (Adopted 6/13/00). Rule 74.16 Oil Field Drilling Operations (Adopted 1/8/91). Rule 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants (Adopted 1/11/05). Rule 74.23 Stationary Gas Turbines (Adopted 1/08/02). Rule 74.24 Marine Coating Operations (Revised 11/11/03). Rule 74.24.1 Pleasure Craft Coating and Commercial Boatyard Operations (Adopted 1/08/02). Rule 74.26 Crude Oil Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94). Rule 74.27 Gasoline and ROC Liquid Storage Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted 11/8/94). Rule 74.28 Asphalt Roofing Operations (Adopted 5/10/94). Rule 74.30 Wood Products Coatings (Revised 11/11/03). Rule 75 Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78). Rule 101 Sampling and Testing Facilities (Adopted 5/23/72). Rule 102 Source Tests (Adopted 4/13/04). Rule 103 Continuous Monitoring Systems (Adopted 2/9/99). Rule 154 Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91). Rule 155 Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91). Rule 156 Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 9/17/91). Rule 158 Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 9/17/91). Rule 159 Traffic Abatement Procedures (Adopted 9/17/91). Rule 220 General Conformity (Adopted 5/9/95). Rule 230 Notice to Comply (Adopted 11/9/99). [FR Doc. E6-13620 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation 43 CFR Part 415 RIN 1006-AA50 Regulating Non-Contract Use of Colorado River Water in the Lower Basin AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is providing advance notice and is seeking public input on its plans to develop a rule to address and reduce the use of Colorado River water in the lower Colorado River basin (Lower Basin) without a contract (Non-Contract Use). Reclamation believes that development of such a rule would help prevent Non-Contract Use from depleting the Colorado River and taking water from holders of Colorado River water entitlements. Reclamation intends that any rule would establish the procedure that Reclamation would follow in making determinations of potential Non-Contract Use including notice and administrative appeal procedures for those entities whose use of Colorado River water falls within the category of Non-Contract use. DATES: Submit comments regarding whether a rule is needed and, what should be in any rule that is developed, to Reclamation at the address below on or before October 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the number 1006-AA50, by any of the following methods: —Federal rulemaking portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. —E-mail: *proposedrule@lc.usbr.gov.* —Fax:
(702)293-8042, attention: Ms. Margot Selig. —Mail: Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region, Attention: Ms. Margot Selig, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, NV 89006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margot Selig, telephone
(702)293-8192, or e-mail at *proposedrule@lc.usbr.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides the public with information as to why Reclamation currently believes development of a Non-Contract use rule is appropriate at this time. *Legal System For Use of Colorado River Water in the Lower Basin:* The Colorado River is a primary source of water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial uses in the Lower Basin within Arizona, California, and Nevada (the Lower Division States). Colorado River water is stored behind Hoover Dam, authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928 (BCPA), for delivery and beneficial use in the United States. In addition, water stored by Hoover Dam is released pursuant to the United States' 1944 Treaty with Mexico addressing use of the Colorado, Rio Grande, and Tijuana Rivers. The BCPA requires any person in the United States using this water to have a contract for such water with the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The Regional Director of Reclamation's Lower Colorado Region (Regional Director) enters into water delivery contracts with water users in Arizona, California, and Nevada on behalf of the Secretary. A valid water delivery contract constitutes an authorization by the Secretary, or an entitlement, to divert and consume Colorado River water in the Lower Basin. In addition to water delivery contracts, other entitlements to use Colorado River water are based on a United States Supreme Court Decree in *Arizona* v. *California* (Supreme Court Decree) or federal reservations of water. An entitlement to use Colorado River water (Entitlement) specifies how much water may be used, the purpose for which the water may be used, and where the use may occur. Reclamation considers any diversion or consumptive use of Colorado River water without a contract or other form of Entitlement to be a Non-Contract Use. The Supreme Court Decree requires Reclamation to account for all mainstem Colorado River water use in the Lower Basin. Pursuant to this requirement, Reclamation prepares and maintains complete, detailed, and accurate records of all known diversions, return flow, and consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin on an annual basis. These accounting records include all diversions and use of Colorado River water in Arizona, California, and Nevada, whether or not currently authorized by a water delivery contract or other form of Entitlement. All reported Colorado River water use in a state—whether authorized by an entitlement or not—is required by the Supreme Court Decree to be accounted for against the amount of Colorado River water available in that state during that year. *Technical Issues Anticipated To Be Addressed by Rule:* As part of the anticipated rule, Reclamation anticipates identifying technical considerations that Reclamation would use to determine if a particular entity is using Colorado River water. Reclamation's current assessment of the situation on the Colorado River is that most Non-Contract Use consists of water withdrawn from wells located within the hydraulically-connected aquifer of the Colorado River (River Aquifer) or from river pumps. The Supreme Court Decree specified that the consumptive use of Colorado River water in the Lower Basin includes water drawn from the mainstream by underground pumping. At Reclamation's request the United States Geological Survey
(USGS)has developed a technical method to identify wells that pump water that is replaced by Colorado River water. The method is based on the existence of a River Aquifer and an accounting surface within the River Aquifer. The accounting surface extends outward from the exterior boundary of the Colorado River floodplain until encountering a geologic barrier to groundwater flow. Several thousand wells are located within the River Aquifer. The USGS is performing a well inventory within the boundary of the River Aquifer to identify wells and river pumps that can potentially divert water that would be replaced by Colorado River water. As part of the anticipated rule, Reclamation would utilize this accounting surface to define the area within which Reclamation would apply the USGS method to determine whether water withdrawn from a well is replaced with Colorado River water. Reclamation would also evaluate whether unique hydrologic circumstances in some areas along the Colorado River would merit an exception to the USGS methodology. *Need for Rule To Regulate Non-Contract Use of Colorado River Water in the Lower Basin:* Reclamation's goal in its management of the lower Colorado River is to ensure that all Colorado River water use is covered by an Entitlement and correctly accounted for within each Lower Division State's apportionment. Because each Lower Division State's apportionment of Colorado River water is a limited amount, Non-Contract Use harms that state's Entitlement holders by taking water the Entitlement holders otherwise could legally use. This fact leads Reclamation to conclude that the proposed rulemaking is necessary and appropriate. Reclamation believes that development of the proposed rule is necessary for a number of reasons, including particularly
(1)the fact that each Lower Division State is fully utilizing its respective apportionment and
(2)the recent prolonged period of drought in the Colorado River Basin which has reduced water saved in the Colorado River reservoirs in recent years. Reclamation anticipates that the rule would also address several other situations where Colorado River water use is not in accordance with an Entitlement, such as using more Colorado River water than is allowed by an Entitlement, using Colorado River water for a purpose the contract does not authorize, or using Colorado River water outside an approved service area for the Entitlement. Reclamation has authority to enforce its written contracts to prevent water use
(i)in excess of an Entitlement,
(ii)for a purpose not approved by the Entitlement, or
(iii)outside the approved service area for the Entitlement. Reclamation anticipates proposing methods to modify the Entitlements to allow the current uses to continue with the approval of Reclamation or cease the use. *Reclamation's Current Assessment of Content of Proposed Rule:* Reclamation believes that the proposed rule is needed to provide a framework for identifying and controlling Non-Contract Use. Pending review of public comments, Reclamation expects the proposed rule to: 1. Establish the methodology developed by the USGS as the tool that Reclamation will use to determine if a well pumps water that is replaced with Colorado River water; 2. Establish the criteria a water user must satisfy to demonstrate that his or her well does not pump water that is replaced with Colorado River water; and 3. Establish a process for a water user to appeal a finding that a well pumps water that would be replaced by Colorado River water. The proposed rule is also anticipated to address Colorado River water use that is not in accordance with an Entitlement. Pending review of public comments, Reclamation expects the proposed rule to: 1. Document the process Reclamation will use to notify a water user if Reclamation makes an initial determination that the water user is using Colorado River water in a way that is not in accordance with an Entitlement. 2. Document the process a water user must follow to challenge the accuracy of the information on which Reclamation's preliminary determination is made. In the proposed rule, Reclamation anticipates including provisions that would serve to legalize Non-Contract Use, where possible, by working with Non-Contract Users to obtain a legal right to use Colorado River water. Here are several options that Reclamation will consider: 1. Some water may be available under the three Lower Division States' apportionments.
(a)*Arizona:* Some Colorado River water may be available for allocation in Arizona. After Reclamation consults with Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), some of Arizona's unobligated Colorado River water could be committed for use by Non-Contract Users in Arizona. A possible contract between ADWR and Reclamation may satisfy the contract requirement for multiple individual water users and eliminate the need for contracts between the United States and the individual Non-Contract water users.
(b)*California:* All Colorado River water available for use in California is already under permanent contract. However, a small amount of water is available for domestic use in California through the Lower Colorado Water Supply Project (LCWSP). Non-Contract Users in California who are eligible for domestic use in California and who wish to participate under the LCWSP would need to enter into a water delivery subcontract with the City of Needles. The City of Needles is the only entity authorized to enter into a standard form subcontract for delivery of this water supply to project beneficiaries.
(c)*Nevada:* All Colorado River water available for use in Nevada is already under permanent contract. Any commitment to recognize new uses of Colorado River water in Nevada would be subject to terms established by the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA). SNWA has an existing Entitlement to the delivery and use of any Colorado River water not previously committed for use by other Nevada water users. 2. A water user may be able to acquire an Entitlement through an assignment, transfer, or lease from an existing Entitlement holder within that state. However, an assignment, transfer, or lease is not valid unless it is approved by Reclamation. 3. A water user may be able to obtain a right to use water as a customer of an existing contract holder. The place of water use must be included within the contract holder's service area and the inclusion must be approved by Reclamation. 4. A water user may be able to acquire a different source of water that is not hydraulically connected to the mainstream of the Colorado River. Directives in the BCPA and the Supreme Court Decree provide that all delivery and use of Colorado River water must be under a valid contract or other form of entitlement with the United States. Implementation of the anticipated rule would protect Entitlement holders by documenting appropriate steps to terminate a Non-Contract Use. Thus, Reclamation anticipates that the proposed rule would provide that if Reclamation determines a water user is making a Non-Contract Use and the water user is unable to acquire a legal right to use Colorado River water, Reclamation would order that water user to cease the Non-Contract Use and pursue available legal options to stop the Non-Contract Use. Submitting Comments Reclamation's practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be other circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety. If you comment via the Internet, please submit comments in plain text, using the characters available on a standard typewriter or computer keyboard. Avoid using special characters and any form of encryption. Please include your name and e-mail or postal address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation via e-mail that Reclamation has received your Internet message, please contact us directly at
(702)293-8192. Dated: August 8, 2006. Mark Limbaugh, Assistant Secretary—Water and Science. [FR Doc. E6-13687 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 16 Insect Species From the Algodones Sand Dunes, Imperial County, CA, as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 16 insect species from the Algodones Sand Dunes, Imperial County, California, as threatened or endangered, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing these species may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of these species or threats to them or their habitat at any time. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California 92011. Submit new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning these species to us at the address above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ); or 760-431-9440 (voice) or 760-431-9624 (fax). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the Service make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding is based on information contained in the petition and information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioners and otherwise available in our files at the time of the petition review. We also had access to California Department of Fish and Game's California Natural Diversity Database that we queried for all known records of each of the species that were identified in the petition for listing. We evaluated this information in accordance with our regulations at Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), § 424.14(b). The process of making a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and § 424.14(b) of our regulations is based on a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the “substantial scientific information” threshold. Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the CFR with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a status review of the species. On July 19, 2004, we received a formal petition dated July 19, 2004, from the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and the Sierra Club (the petitioners) to list two sand wasps ( *Microbembix elegans* ) and ( *Stictiella villegasi* ); two bees ( *Perdita algodones* and *Perdita glamis* ); one vespid ( *Euparagia* n. sp.); two velvet ants ( *Dasymutilla nocturna* and *Dasymutilla imperialis* ); Algodones sand jewel beetle ( *Lepismadora algodones* ); Algodones white wax jewel beetle ( *Prasinalia imperialis* ); Algodones croton jewel beetle ( *Agrilus harenus* ); Hardy's dune beetle ( *Anomala hardyorum* ); a scarab beetle ( *Cyclocephala wandae* ); and four subspecies of Roth's dune weevil ( *Trigonoscuta rothi rothi* , *Trigonoscuta rothi algodones* , *Trigonoscuta rothi imperialis* , and *Trigonoscuta rothi punctata* ), hereafter referred to as the 16 insect species, as threatened or endangered species in accordance with section 4 of the Act. On September 24, 2004, we received a letter and additional supporting documentation for the petition to list 16 insect species associated with the Algodones Dunes from the Center for Biological Diversity. The petitioners requested listing of 16 insect species they believe to be endemic to the Algodones Dunes. This same area is alternately referred to as the Imperial Sand Dunes or the Glamis Dunes, and other geographic names are used to refer to portions of it. The Algodones Dunes is a desert located in eastern Imperial County in southern California. It is the largest mass of sand dunes in California, covering more than 40 miles
(mi)(64 kilometers (km)) long and averaging 5 mi (8 km) wide (BLM 2003, p. 5). Most of this area is public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (about 92 percent), and the rest is either private, U.S. Military, or State of California land (BLM 2003, p. 20). Most of the Algodones Dunes is in California, but a small portion extends southward into Mexico. The petitioners also requested designation of critical habitat for the 16 insect species concurrent with their listing. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an October 5, 2004, letter to the petitioners, we responded that we reviewed the petition for the 16 insect species and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted, and that due to court orders and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required nearly all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2005, we would not be able to otherwise address the petition to list the 16 insect species at that time. On December 1, 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in United States District Court for the Southern District of California ( *Center for Biological Diversity* v. *Norton et al.* , No. 05 CV 1988 BEN (BLM)) challenging our failure to issue a 90-day finding on the petition to list the 16 insect species. On January 12, 2006, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to submit to the **Federal Register** a completed 90-day finding by August 7, 2006, and if substantial, to complete the 12-month finding by June 15, 2007. This notice constitutes the 90-day finding for the July 19, 2004 petition. Regarding the petitioners' request to list the vespid wasp ( *Euparagia* n. sp.), we note that this does not represent a listable taxonomic entity under our regulations. The petitioners only identified a genus, and to make a listing decision, a taxon must be described to at least the species level. With regard to the four petitioned subspecies of Roth's dune weevil ( *Trigonoscuta rothi rothi* , *Trigonoscuta rothi algodones* , *Trigonoscuta rothi imperialis* , and *Trigonoscuta rothi punctata* ), we did find a published manuscript naming these subspecies (Pierce 1975, pp. 57, 73, and 74). However, Anderson (2002, p. 777) states that most of the taxa in the genus *Trigonoscuta* are of questionable validity and need reassessment. Because the petition did not provide any further substantiating evidence related to the taxonomy of these insects, we have determined that the petition does not provide substantial scientific information that the vespid wasp ( *Euparagia* n. sp.) and the four subspecies of weevils ( *Trigonoscuta rothi rothi* , *Trigonoscuta rothi algodones* , *Trigonoscuta rothi imperialis* , and *Trigonoscuta rothi punctata* ) are scientifically accepted taxons. Under the Act, we can only list recognized invertebrate species and subspecies. Hence, the request to list *Euparagia* n. sp. and the four Trigonoscuta subspecies will not be further considered in this finding. Therefore, the remainder of this finding addresses the remaining 11 insect species identified in the petition. Species Information *The following section is based on information in the petition and available to us at the time of petition review. Microbembix elegans* , a sand wasp, was first described as a species by Griswold
(1996)and is in the family Sphecidae. Species in the genus *Microbembix* are all found in North and South America and are recognized by their relatively small size and other features as described by Bohart and Horning (1971, p. 24). The male *M. elegans* is unique among *Microbembix* in the modifications to the middle and hind legs (Griswold 1996, p. 142). Males average 0.47 inches
(in)(12 millimeters (mm)) long and females range from 0.35 to 0.39 in (9 to 10 mm) long (Griswold 1996, p 143). Habitat information is limited to the description of active slip faces within sand dune systems; all specimens have been found at the base of shrubs where detritus collects (Griswold 1996, p. 142). Abundance and population trend information is not available. Distribution knowledge is limited to two “populations” identified in the Algodones Dunes system in Imperial County, California (Griswold 1996, p. 142). The other sand wasp, *Stictiella villegasi,* was first described by Bohart (1982, pp. 596-597) and is also in the family Sphecidae. Bohart (1982, p. 597) states the species can be recognized by its almost entirely yellow appearance and a combination of other specific physical characteristics. Males and females are approximately 0.47 in (12 mm) long (Bohart 1982, p. 596). Information on habitat use, abundance, and population trends is not available. All known collections of the species are from the Algodones Dunes system in Imperial County, California (Bohart 1982, p. 597). *Perdita algodones,* a bee, was first described by Timberlake (1980, p. 26) and is in the family Andrenidae. The species ranges in length from 0.17 to 0.18 in (4.3 to 4.5 mm) and in width from 0.05 to 0.06 in (1.2 to 1.5 mm) (Timberlake 1980, p. 26). This species has a dark blue-green head and thorax, black abdomen, and “whitish” wings (Timberlake 1980, p. 26). Timberlake (1980, p. 26) provides a detailed description of distinguishing physical characteristics of this species and states that it was found in the vicinity of Glamis, in Imperial County, California. Information on habitat, abundance, and population trends is lacking. All known collections are from the vicinity of Glamis, in Imperial County, California (Timberlake 1980, p. 26). The other bee, *Perdita glamis,* is also in the family Andrenidae and was described from the only two known specimens by Timberlake (1980, pp. 16 and 17). The physical dimensions as provided by Timberlake (1980, p. 17) are a length of 0.20 in (5 mm) and an abdomen width of 0.06 in (1.5 mm). The head and thorax are dark blue and the abdomen is “dusky” (Timberlake 1980, p. 17). Timberlake (1980, p. 17) provides a detailed description of distinguishing physical characteristics of this species and indicates it was discovered in the sand dunes area of Imperial County, California. Information on habitat, abundance, and population trends is lacking. All known collections of this species are from the vicinity of Glamis in Imperial County, California (Timberlake 1980; p. 17). *Dasymutilla nocturna,* a velvet ant, is a wasp in the family Mutillidae. Female mutillids are hairy and wingless, resembling ants, while males have wings and fewer hairs (Foltz 2001, pp. 1-2). All mutillid wasp larvae are parasitic on other insects (Earthlife 2005, p. 1). Mickel (1928, pp. 279-281) first described *Dasymutilla nocturna* based on two female specimens and provided a detailed description of distinguishing physical characteristics. Females are dark mahogany red, and males are black. Body length given by Mickel (1928, p. 279 and 281) was 0.5 in (13 mm) for females, and 0.4 in (10 mm) for males. Manley (1999), who also collected this species, examined Mickel's (1928, pp. 279-281) specimens and compared them to specimens from other California desert region *Dasymutilla* species. Manley (1999, p. 21) synonymized the species *D. subhyalina* and some specimens of *D. paranocturna* with *D. nocturna* on the basis that:
(1)All are nocturnal;
(2)all share the same geographic range, the Colorado Desert;
(3)numerous individuals have been collected at the same place and time; and
(4)males were attracted to and tried to mate with caged females. Specific information on habitat use, abundance, and population trends is not available. Although most *D. nocturna* specimens have been collected from the Algodones Dunes or nearby (Manley 1999, p. 20), current available scientific information does not support the hypothesis that this species is restricted to the Algodones Dunes. Manley (1999, p. 18) states that the specimen from which the synonymous taxon *D. paranocturna* was described (the holotype) was collected from Blythe, Riverside County, California (approximately 50 mi (80 km) north of the Algodones Dunes) and further states the holotype is “undoubtedly a specimen of *D. nocturna.* ” Manley (1999, p. 20) also mentioned a *D. nocturna* specimen he said was correctly identified, but it was labeled Preston, Nevada. Manley states that this was likely mislabeled because “* * * no other specimen of the species had been found within [683.5 mi] 1100 km of Preston, Nevada.” However, expert wasp taxonomist Roy Snelling
(2006)confirmed a wider species distribution, citing personally identified *D. nocturna* specimens collected from the town of Roll, in Pima County, Arizona; the town of Westmorland near the Salton Sea in Imperial County, California; and the village of Paredones, Baja California, Mexico, southwest of the Algodones Dunes. The towns of Roll in Arizona and Westmorland in California, and the village of Paredones in Baja California, Mexico, are approximately 75 mi (121 km), 19 mi (31 km), and 35 mi (56 km) from the Algodones Dunes, respectively. Based on this information, we do not believe that *D. nocturna* is endemic to the Algodones Dunes. The other velvet ant, *Dasymutilla imperialis,* is also a wasp in the family Mutillidae. It was first described by Manley and Pitts (2004, pp. 646-648), who provide a detailed description of the species' distinguishing physical characteristics based on male specimens; no female specimens have been collected. The male is entirely black and the length is approximately 0.39 to 0.47 in (10 to 12 mm) (Manley and Pitts 2004, p. 646). Specific information on habitat, abundance, and population trends is not available. All known collections are from the Algodones Dunes (Manley and Pitts 2004, p. 648) and extensive collecting in this area over many years has not yielded any additional specimens of this species (Manley and Pitts 2004, p. 649). Manley and Pitts (2004, pp. 646-649) do not discuss any searches of other sand dunes for this species. The Algodones sand jewel beetle *Lepismadora algodones* is in the family Buprestidae. It was first described by Velten and Bellamy (1987, pp. 186, 188, and 190), who provide a detailed description of distinguishing physical characteristics of the species: it varies in length from 0.16 to 0.25 in (4.0 to 6.5 mm) and in width from 0.06 to 0.08 in (1.4 to 2.1 mm), with females generally larger than males. Color varies from cupreus (copper) to brassy green (Velten and Bellamy 1987, p. 190). Most specimens in association with the plant *Tiquilia plicata,* the species was observed feeding on flowers and foliage of *Tiquilia plicata,* or at rest on foliage or dead twigs on the soil surface (Velten and Bellamy 1987, p. 190). The petition provides information on habitat use, activity patterns, reproduction, and mortality that we were unable to confirm in any cited information sources or information in our files. Specific information on habitat use, abundance, and population trends of this species was not available. All known collections of the species are from the Algodones Dunes in Imperial County, California (Velten and Bellamy 1987, p. 190). The Algodones white wax jewel beetle *Prasinalia imperialis* is also in the family Buprestidae. It was first described by Barr (1969, pp. 326-328), who provides the most detailed description of this species' distinguishing physical characteristics. It is most readily recognized by its coppery coloration. Male dimensions vary from 0.63 to 0.87 in (16.0 to 22.0 mm) in length, while females vary from 0.57 to 0.89 in (14.5 to 25.0 mm) in length (Nelson and Bellamy 1996, p. 899). Habitat information is limited to a host plant association and collection locations. Barr (1969, p. 328) and Nelson and Bellamy (1996, p. 899) note an association with the plant *Eriogonum deserticola.* Larvae develop in the roots and crown of *Eriogonum deserticola,* and adults have been observed feeding on the bark of live twigs of this plant (Nelson and Bellamy 1996, p. 899). Information on abundance and population trends is not available. All collections for this species are from sand dunes and nearby areas on the eastern slope of Imperial Valley in California (Barr 1969, p. 328; Nelson and Bellamy 1996, p. 899). The Algodones Croton jewel beetle *Agrilus harenus* is another member of the family Buprestidae. This species was first described by Nelson (1994, pp. 261-262), who provides a detailed description of the physical characteristics of the species. Males are 0.18 to 0.27 in (4.5 to 6.9 mm) long, while females range from 0.19 to 0.27 in (4.8 to 6.9 mm) long (Nelson 1994, p. 263). The species has been collected in association with sand dune habitat, and all the adults were associated with Wiggin's croton ( *Croton wigginsii* ), the likely host plant (Nelson 1994, p. 263). Adults have been collected from mid-April to late September (Nelson 1994, p. 263). There is no information on abundance or population trends. All collections for this species were from the Algodones Dunes in Imperial County, California (Nelson 1994, p. 263). Hardy's dune beetle *Anomala hardyorum* is a member of the family Scarabaeidae. This species was first described by Potts (1976, pp. 221-222), who provides a detailed description of the species' distinguishing physical characteristics. Members of this species have a light tan coloration with males ranging from 0.28 to 0.39 in (7 to 10 mm) in length, and females from 0.28 to 0.35 in (7 to 9 mm) (Potts 1976, pp. 223 and 224). The species has most often been found on north- or east-facing dune slip faces. There is no known association between adults and any plant species (Hardy and Andrews 1980, p. 14). Adults are known to be active at dusk (Hardy and Andrews 1980, p. 14). There are no quantified estimates of abundance or population trends and information on distribution is limited. Hardy and Andrews (1980, p. 38-39) provided a map of collection locations in the Algodones Dunes, and concluded that the Hardy's June beetle was widespread in the dune system (Hardy and Andrews 1980, p. 17). All known collections are from the Algodones Dunes in Imperial County, California (Potts 1976, p. 222; Hardy and Andrews 1980, p. 14). The scarab beetle *Cyclocephala wandae* is also a member of the family Scarabaeidae. This scarab beetle was first described by Hardy (pp. 160-161), who provides a detailed description of the species' distinguishing physical characteristics. The beetle is light brown, similar to *Pseudocatalpa andrewsii,* and ranges in length from 0.26 to 0.30 in. (6.6 to 7.5 mm) (Hardy 1974, p. 160). We were not able to locate information on abundance, distribution, or population trends. Other than the fact that the species inhabits sand dunes (Hardy 1974, pp. 160-161; Andrews *et al.* 1979, p. 40) habitat use information is lacking, and distribution information is limited to known collections from the Algodones Dunes in Imperial County, California (Hardy 1974, p. 161; Andrews *et al.* 1979, p. 40). Threats Analysis Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A)Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C)disease or predation;
(D)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether threats to the 11 scientifically accepted taxons presented in the petition may pose a concern with respect to their survival, such that listing under the Act may be warranted. Our evaluation of these threats is presented below. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range The petitioners state that the 11 insect species are endemic to the Algodones Dunes system and are habitat specialists with restricted geographic ranges, making them more prone to extinction than more widespread species. The petitioners also cite statements by Hardy and Andrews (1976, p. 21) that Coleoptera species endemic to several California dune systems face possible extinction or population decline if habitat destruction by human activity continues or escalates. The petitioners further assert that the 11 petitioned insect species have no colonization source should their known populations be eliminated. The petitioners state that several published studies have documented deleterious effects of Off-Road-Vehicles
(ORVs)on desert arthropods, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and vegetation (Busack and Bury 1974; Hardy and Andrews 1976; Bury *et al.* 1977; Berry 1980; Bury and Luckenbach 1983; Luckenbach and Bury 1983; Schultz 1988; Brooks 1995; Stebbins 1995; Brooks 1999). The petitioners indicate that Hardy and Andrews
(1976)reported ORVs could damage sand dune surfaces and destroy pockets of accumulated vegetative material or crusted deposits, which may be larval nurseries for endemic insects. The petitioners cite Carpelan
(1995)as stating that ORVs can eliminate “entire generations” by obliterating accumulated vegetable matter in which larvae develop; as well as the findings of Luckenbach and Bury
(1983)that arthropod tracks (mostly beetle) were 24 times more abundant in control areas than they were in ORV-impacted areas. The petitioners also cite Luckenbach and Bury's
(1983)overall study conclusion that ORV activities in the Algodones Dunes are highly detrimental to dune biota. The petitioners cite several studies that discuss loss of vegetative cover due to ORV activity (Bury *et al.* 1977; Berry 1980; Lathrop 1983; Luckenbach and Bury 1983) and assert any activities resulting in the decline of general plant cover and host plants would threaten survival of rare endemic insect species with highly restricted geographical ranges and highly specific habitat needs. The petitioners discuss concerns for Andrews' dune scarab beetle ( *Pseudocotalpa andrewsi* ), including lack of proposed monitoring of this species and impacts from ORVs in areas where it was known to be most abundant. Please refer to the **Federal Register** notice at 71 FR 2644 for our 90-day finding on the petition to list the Andrews' dune scarab beetle species. The petitioners conclude that current and projected ORV use and lack of adequate management by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)threaten the continued existence of this and other endemic Algodones Dunes species. The petitioners also mention the temporary ORV closures for portions of the Algodones Dunes to protect the Peirson's milk-vetch ( *Astragalus magdalenae* ) in effect since November 2000, which encompass about 49,000 acres
(ac)(19,838 hectares (ha)) (65 FR 69324, November 16, 2000). The petitioners also describe proposed management for the Algodones Dunes under the BLM Draft 2002 Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP), and how the RAMP would greatly increase the area open to ORVs compared to the current situation. The petitioners assert that if currently protected areas in the Algodones Dunes are re-opened to ORV traffic, and other areas supporting rare endemic insects are not also protected, then habitat for the petitioned insect species will be modified or destroyed and their ranges curtailed. The petitioners do not provide any scientific or commercial information on the distribution, habitat use, abundance, or population status of any of the 11 insect species in the part of the dune system that includes the Yuma Dunes in southwestern Arizona and dunes within the Gran Desierto Altar in Sonora, Mexico. Evaluation of Information in the Petition Based on the distribution information previously presented for *D. nocturna,* we believe this species is not endemic to the Algodones Dunes. However, we acknowledge it is possible the other 10 insect species could be endemic to the Algodones Dunes. Information provided in the petition and in our files on distribution of the 10 insect species is very limited. This information indicates these insects have only been found in the Algodones Dunes, but no information provided with the petition or in our files indicates whether other potential dune habitats, such as the Yuma Dunes or dune systems within the 5,000 square mi (12,950 square km) area of the Gran Desierto de Altar, have been surveyed for the 10 insect species. Only two studies cited by the petitioners, Hardy and Andrews
(1976)and Andrews *et al.* (1979), sampled more than one dune area in southern California, and they only surveyed for beetles. Andrews *et al.*
(1979)does provide some evidence that the two petitioned scarab beetles ( *Cyclocephala wandae* and *Anomala hardyorum* ) are endemic to Algodones Dunes; out of the five dune systems sampled, they found these two species only at the Algodones Dunes. But their conclusions are limited to the five dune systems and do not include all dune systems in the southwestern United States and Mexico, where these two species could potentially occur. Hence, it is unclear how widely scientists have searched for these two insect species. Without comprehensive surveys throughout sand dunes areas of southern California, Arizona, and northern Mexico, our understanding of these species' distributions and ranges is incomplete. An apparent host-plant relationship has been documented for the three jewel beetle species (Barr 1969, page 328; Velten and Bellamy 1987, page 190; Nelson 1994, page 263), but beyond this and the association of all the petitioned species with sand dunes, habitat requirements for the three jewel beetle species are inconclusive. The host plants for the three jewel beetles species are not endemic to the Algodones dunes. *Tiquila plicata* ranges into Arizona and Nevada (Hickman 1996, p. 392), *E. deserticola* is also found in Arizona and northwest Sonora, Mexico (Hickman 1996, p. 870), and *C. wigginsii* is also found in Arizona and northwestern Mexico (Hickman 1996, p. 572). Also, the petition does not provide significant information on the abundance of the 11 insect species, nor does it provide any population trend information. Given the extreme paucity of information on distribution (for example, *D. nocturna* ; Snelling 2006), habitat requirements, abundance, and population trends, it cannot be determined how rare these 11 species are, how restricted they are geographically, how specialized they are in their habitat requirements, or if they lack colonization sources if known populations are eliminated. The petitioners cite Busack and Bury (1974), Hardy and Andrews (1976), Bury *et al.* (1977), Berry (1980), Bury and Luckenbach (1983), Luckenbach and Bury (1983), Schultz (1988), Brooks (1995), Stebbins (1995), and Brooks
(1999)as reporting negative effects of ORVs on desert species. However, most of these studies reported effects of ORV activity on vegetative cover and vertebrates, not insects. Schultz
(1988)reported some negative effects of ORV activity on riparian tiger beetle (Cicindelidae) habitat, but this work was not in a sand dune system, and it did not involve any of the 11 insect species. Only Bury and Luckenbach
(1983)and Luchenbach and Bury
(1983)provided Algodones Dunes arthropod information, and both discuss the same data. Luckenbach and Bury (1983, p. 275) reported “arthropod (mostly beetle) tracks were twenty-four times more abundant in control plots [not impacted by ORV use] than in ORV-impacted plots.” However, this work was focused mostly on vegetation and vertebrates, and arthropod (invertebrate) data was not species-specific. Furthermore, the observed tracks may not have represented any of the petitioned insects and were only identified as “mostly beetles.” Although Griswold (1996, p. 142) states that the sand wasp *Microbembix elegans* may be threatened by ORV activity, he did not provide data to substantiate this claim. Griswold (1996, p. 142) also stated that, while areas where this species was found were open to ORV activity, they were not currently receiving a high level of disturbance. Similarly, Evans and Bellamy (2000, p. 184) provided a list of threats to beetle populations that includes ORV traffic but do not provide data to document beetle impacts. Despite the petitioners' claim that Hardy and Andrews
(1976)concluded that ORVs could destroy areas in the Algodones Dunes with pockets of accumulated vegetative material or crusted deposits, Hardy and Andrews (1976, p. 2) did not have any study sites in the Algodones Dunes. Hardy and Andrews (1976, p. 19) summarized ways in which ORV activity may adversely affect dune restricted or adapted insects, but they did not provide data to support these hypotheses. Andrews *et al.* (1979, pp. 4-9) provided inventories of five dune areas in California, including the Algodones Dunes. However, only beetle species were inventoried, only the two petitioned scarab beetles and Roth's dune weevil were collected, and no information was provided on the effects of ORVs on insect species. Carpelan (1995, pp. 275-283) provided information on sand dune ecosystems focused on dune stabilization and dune insect adaptation and speciation. However, Carpelan's (1995, pp. 276-277) work was largely derived from Hardy and Andrews
(1976)beetle study, and expressed general concern about adverse effects of ORVs on invertebrates. Because Andrews' dune scarab beetle was evaluated separately under another listing petition, discussion of this species in this petition finding has limited relevancy. However, the Andrews' dune scarab beetle does face similar possible threats in the same geographic area, and the petition for Andrews' dune scarab beetle lacked similar substantial information, for example, a lack of distribution information from dune systems in Mexico (71 FR 26444; May 5, 2006). We acknowledge that BLM management of the Algodones Dunes could potentially affect the 11 insect species, because BLM does permit ORV use in parts of this dune system. However, about 49,000 ac (19,838 ha) of BLM managed lands are under temporary ORV closure to protect the Peirson's milk-vetch (65 FR 69324; November 16, 2000). In addition, the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area, of which BLM manages about 26,000 ac (10,526 ha), is permanently closed to ORV activity (BLM 2003; p. 71). BLM manages 159,000 acres (64,372 hectares) of the Algodones Dunes (BLM 2003; p. 5) so about 47 percent of the BLM-managed lands in the Algodones Dunes are currently closed to ORV activity. These interim closures are still in effect. Current management of the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area (ISDRA) is discussed under Factor D below. We compared a map of the interim ORV closures with the map of Hardy's dune beetle distribution in the Algodones Dunes from Hardy and Andrews (1980; appendix map). This was the only one of the petitioned insect species for which we had a collection location map. Fifteen of the 20 locations where Hardy's dune beetle was found (Hardy and Andrews 1980; appendix map) occurred outside of interim closure areas. One interim closure area, which BLM designated as the Adaptive Management Area in the 2003 RAMP (BLM 2003), had multiple Hardy's dune beetle collection locations. With regard to ORV use this area is designated as “Limited” in the 2003 RAMP (BLM 2003; page 84). The Adaptive Management Area would be open to motor vehicle entry only from October 15 to March 31 of each year, and only by permit (BLM 2003). Biological resources and public use would be monitored, and BLM would adjust public use to conserve habitats and species of concern (BLM 2003; pp. 84-86). Also BLM (2003; page 84) indicates current visitor use of the Adaptive Management Area is low compared to the remainder of the ISDRA. In addition, more location records (Hardy and Andrews 1980; appendix map) fall within the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area permanently closed to ORVs, than within the Adaptive Management Area. Regardless of the potential for negative ORV impacts, there is no information in the petition documenting what the magnitude of ORV impacts would be to Hardy's dune beetle or any of the other petitioned insect species. Information in the petition regarding impacts to the 11 insect species in the Algodones Dunes from ORV use is inadequate, incomplete, or nonexistent. Therefore, we find the petition does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to document that ORV use may be a factor threatening the 11 insect species. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition does not provide any information pertaining to Factor B. We acknowledge that scientific collection of insect species will continue in the Algodones Dunes area, but we do not have any information indicating current levels of collecting activity will harm populations. C. Disease or Predation The petitioners state that natural predation and disease, including fungal pathogens, affects populations; however, specific data are not available. Since the petition does not provide any data on natural predation or disease for the 11 insect species, we find that the petition does not contain substantial scientific or commercial information to document disease or predation may be a factor that threaten the petitioned insect species. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petitioners assert that inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms endanger the continued existence of the petitioned insect species of the Algodones Dunes. The petitioners claim administrative plans and legal requirements to monitor and conserve endemic insects have not been implemented by BLM, while ORV use in the Algodones Dunes has increased by an order of magnitude in the last 30 years, resulting in direct mortality of endemic insect species and loss of host plants. The petitioners state that current management plans allow ORV use in the majority of habitat supporting the rare endemic insects (94 percent of creosote scrub, 84 percent of psammophytic scrub, and 88 percent of microphyll woodland). They also claim that pending plans to open currently protected areas of the dune system to ORVs are one of the most immediate threats to the existence of these insects. The petitioners further assert that BLM has been aware of concerns regarding the adverse impacts of ORVs on endemic insect species on the dunes for at least 30 years. They cite work by Hardy and Andrews
(1976)describing deleterious effects of ORV activity on sand dune insects and claim ORV impacts discussed in that report are relevant to the Algodones Dunes, while acknowledging that Hardy and Andrews
(1976)study did not focus on this area. The petitioners additionally claim that published peer-reviewed scientific literature is replete with studies documenting serious negative impacts of ORVs on desert systems (see discussion under Factor A). They also assert ORV use throughout the Algodones Dunes continued unabated in sensitive habitat until BLM was sued and forced to implement interim closures to protect the threatened Peirson's milk-vetch and desert tortoise. The petition notes three planning documents for the Algodones Dunes Wildlife Habitat Area addressed management of biological resources prior to BLM's 2002 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for managing the ISDRA. These include the 1972 Recreation Management Plan, the 1980 California Desert Conservation Area Plan, and the 1987 RAMP (BLM and CDFG 1987). According to the petitioners, the 1987 RAMP called for reduction in the proposed level of recreation development and dispersal of intensive recreational use within Class I areas (an intensive-use category where the management objective is to enhance opportunities for ORV recreation). The 1987 RAMP also included the Algodones Dunes Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (HMP), implemented under the authority of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a-670o). The petitioners state that the HMP mandated biennial surveys for Andrew's dune scarab beetle and action that should be taken to determine distribution and status of other endemic invertebrates. They further assert that permanent monitoring of endemic dune insects was mandated in the HMP, but surveys have not been conducted. The petitioners quote statements in the DEIS (BLM 2002) about biology, distribution, and threats to Andrews' dune scarab beetle, Hardy's dune beetle, and Carlson's dune beetle ( *Anomala carlsoni* ). They also claim BLM's assessment (BLM 2002) of these three beetle species is inadequate and inaccurate given the information presented in their petition. The petitioners state the DEIS lists only five insect species as “known to occur or having the potential to occur” at Algodones Dunes, and BLM ignored nearly two dozen other endemic insects in this area for which scientific information is available. The petition notes the HMP mandated collection of demographic and distributional information would have provided data regarding population growth rates, survival, reproduction, and habitat use that would have been useful in developing the BLM management plan. The petitioners also state that no data were presented in the DEIS (BLM 2002) regarding distribution of endemic insect species in the Algodones Dunes, although such data are required before land-use decisions are made to ensure species are not jeopardized by Federal actions. The petitioners state that, in light of known ORV impacts on endemic desert insects, regulatory mechanisms to protect these species should include permanent protection of habitats throughout the Algodones Dunes, including stringent enforcement closures. The petitioners also state all four 2002 DEIS alternatives would result in relaxed conservation measures compared to current levels of protection, including reopening thousands of acres currently protected from ORV use, and the DEIS specifically rejected an alternative that would have maintained the interim closures. According to the petitioners, three of the four alternatives in the DEIS (BLM 2002) would permit ORVs on 198,220 ac (80,251 ha), and only protect 27,695 ac (11,213 ha) which is already protected as designated wilderness. The petitioners included a table with the petition summarizing four 2002 DEIS allowed ORV activity level alternatives for three desert habitat types (creosote bush scrub, psammophytic scrub, and microphyll woodland). The information suggests that even the most protective alternative (Alternative 3) would allow ORV use in more than half the psammophytic scrub, one-third the creosote bush scrub, and one-fourth the microphyll woodland. The information also suggests that visitation rates by 2012 to 2013 are projected to increase 82 percent above the 1999 to 2000 levels, and sensitive dune habitats will be increasingly impacted. Evaluation of Information in the Petition We acknowledge that the 1980 California Desert Conservation Area Plan called for monitoring effects of vehicle use on wildlife habitats and populations, and identifying and protecting sensitive species in management decisions (BLM 1980, pp. 20 and 28). Also, the Algodones Dunes Wildlife HMP (BLM and CDFG 1987, pp. 16 and 18) had action items for determining distribution and status of endemic invertebrates, and biological resource trends of special management concern in relation to implementing resource allocation decisions. BLM has funded some inventory and status work on insects at the Algodones Dunes (Andrews *et al.* 1979; Hardy and Andrews 1980; Scarabaeus Associates 1991), but whether all the monitoring work outlined in historic management plans has been completed is unknown. Information on insect species in the Algodones Dunes is lacking, as previously discussed. We acknowledge that, if this information was available, it would better inform BLM management decisions. The petitioners did not substantiate their claim that published peer-reviewed scientific literature is “replete” with studies documenting serious negative impacts of ORVs in desert systems. The petition cites primarily Busack and Bury (1974), Hardy and Andrews (1976), Bury *et al.* (1977), Berry (1980), Bury and Luckenbach (1983), Luckenbach and Bury (1983), Schultz (1988), Brooks (1995 and 1999), and Stebbins (1995), regarding this threat. We find these works to be credible sources, but only four investigated desert systems and were published as peer-reviewed scientific literature (Busack and Bury 1974; Luckenbach and Bury 1983; Brooks 1995 and 1999). The other references are either book chapters summarizing studies done by others, or agency reports. From our evaluation of the petition it appears that the petition overstated the amount of peer-reviewed scientific information regarding the effects of ORVs on desert systems. Of the scientific peer-reviewed literature cited, only Luckenbach and Bury
(1983)reported impacts to invertebrates. Luckenbach and Bury
(1983)did study the Algodones Dunes, and reported “arthropod (mostly beetle) tracks were twenty-four times more abundant in control plots than in ORV impacted plots.” However, Luckenbach and Bury's
(1983)data was limited to the central dunes (near State Highway 78), and was not species-specific (observed tracks may not have included any of the petitioned species or reflect species abundance). Scarabeaus Associates'
(1991)study was intended to investigate impacts of ORV use on Andrews' dune scarab beetle. However, results were inconclusive (Scarabeaus Associates 1991), partly because ORV use levels were not documented at sample sites for correlation with beetle abundance. Regarding concerns expressed by petitioners, the final 2003 RAMP (BLM 2003) for the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area does not address specific conservation, research, or monitoring of the insects identified in the petition. The only mention in the BLM 2003 RAMP of any of the insect species was for Hardy's dune beetle, recognizing this beetle is a “poorly known” BLM sensitive species (Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities section). The final 2003 RAMP utilizes the preferred alternative in the DEIS (Alternative 2, BLM 2002) referenced by petitioners. Under the final 2003 RAMP all-terrain vehicle, motorcycle, truck, and dune buggy ORV use will be prohibited in the 26,202-ac (10,608-ha) North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Management Area (BLM 2003; p. 71). This represents about 16 percent of the area of the ISDRA managed by BLM. It is true that interim vehicle use closure areas designated for the threatened Peirson's milk-vetch plant and desert tortoise ( *Gopherus agassizii* ) through legal stipulation (BLM 2002) would not be maintained (would be opened to ORV use) under the final 2003 RAMP (BLM 2003). However, these interim ORV closures are still in effect, and, as a result of a March 13, 2006 U.S. District Court ruling ( *Center for Biological Diversity* *et al.* v. *Bureau of Land Management* *et al.* and *American Sand Association* *et al.* , No. C 03-02509 SI), BLM is not currently able to fully implement the 2003 RAMP. Therefore, the petitioners' contention that implementation of the 2003 RAMP, which would then open currently closed areas to ORV use, poses an immediate threat to the 11 insect species is not accurate. Regardless of the specific management and monitoring actions implemented by BLM at the Algodones Dunes, the central issue here is whether such management is inadequate because the associated ORV activity has or will adversely affect the 11 insect species such that listing may be warranted. Though the petitioners claim they “were unable to find a single study documenting positive or even neutral effects of ORVs,” the petition does not contain substantial information that ORV activity adversely affects any of the 11 insect species. The final 2003 RAMP also specifies some positive management actions that would help conserve dune habitat and species, such as monitoring of ORV use and species and habitats of concern (BLM 2003; Appendix 1). Because there is a lack of information on ORV effects on the 11 insect species and species-specific threats, there is no basis for finding existing regulatory protections are inadequate. Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information that lack of regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to any of the 11 insect species. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued Existence The petitioners state that pesticide use in agricultural areas of Imperial Valley may be having negative impacts on these species through pesticide drift into the Algodones Dunes. The petitioners also state that spraying programs for the curly top leafhopper virus are likely to directly impact the species. However, the petitioners do not provide data or cite published studies to support these claims. Additionally, no information provided in the petition or in our files indicates that direct mortality from ORV use currently threatens any of the petitioned insect species. Therefore, we find the petition does not contain substantial scientific or commercial information that other natural or manmade factors may be a factor threatening the continued existence of the petitioned insect species. Finding We evaluated each of the five listing factors individually, and because the threats to the 11 insect species are not mutually exclusive, we also evaluated the collective effect of these threats. The petition focused primarily on two listing factors: Factor A (the Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range) and Factor D (Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). More specifically, information in the petition suggests that ORV activity within the Algodones dunes has disturbed dune surfaces and underlying accumulated organic debris that could act as larval nurseries for endemic insects. Additionally, the petitioners assert any activities resulting in the decline of general plant cover and host plants would threaten survival of rare endemic insect species with highly restricted geographical ranges and highly specific habitat needs. However, the petition does not present specific information regarding impacts to any of the 11 insect species and we are not aware of specific information regarding the impacts of ORV activities on the 11 insect species. Furthermore, the petition cites the inadequacy of mechanisms, specifically BLM management, as threatening the continued existence of the 16 insect species. Additionally, interim court-ordered closures are currently in effect in over 16 percent of the ISDRA; therefore, the petitioners' contention that implementation of the 2003 RAMP, which would open the currently closed areas to ORV use, poses an immediate threat to the 11 insect species is not accurate. However, the central issue is whether ORV activity will adversely affect the 11 insect species. As stated above, the petition did not present substantial information, nor are we aware of any information regarding the adverse effects of ORV on any of the 11 insect species. We reviewed the petition and supporting information provided by the petitioners and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent literature and information available at the time of the petition review. After this review and evaluation, we find
(1)The vespid wasp ( *Euparagia* n. sp.) is not a listable entity as defined by the Act since it is only identified by the petitioners to the genus level;
(2)the petition does not provide substantial scientific information that the four subspecies of weevils ( *Trigonoscuta rothi rothi* , *Trigonoscuta rothi algodones* , *Trigonoscuta rothi imperialis* , and *Trigonoscuta rothi punctata* ) are scientifically accepted taxons; and
(3)the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information to demonstrate listing the remaining 11 petitioned 16 insect species of the Algodones Dunes area as threatened or endangered may be warranted at this time. We encourage interested parties to continue gathering data that will assist with conservation of these species. Information regarding the 16 insect species may be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) at any time. References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon request, from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ). Author The authors of this document are the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: August 1, 2006. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-13109 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 160 Friday, August 18, 2006 Notices COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *SKennerly@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 23, 2006, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (71 FR 36061) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification *Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement:* Services *Service Type/Location:* Administrative Services GSA, Federal Technology Service, 10304 Eaton Place, Fairfax, Virginia. *NPA:* ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Federal Technology Service, Ft. Huachuca, Arizona. *Service Type/Location:* Laundry Service USDA, National Animal Disease Center, 2300 Dayton Avenue, Ames, Iowa. *NPA:* Genesis Development, Jefferson, Iowa. *Contracting Activity:* USDA, Agriculture Research Service, Peoria, Illinois. *Service Type/Location:* Linen Exchange and Laundry Service 1st Medical Group Medical Treatment Facility (MTF), at the following locations: Langley AFB, Virginia, Main Facility—45 Pine Road, Dental Clinic—76 Nealy Avenue, Flight Medicine—Building 74, Physical Therapy—Building 267. *NPA:* Louise W. Eggleston Center, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia. *Contracting Activity:* 1st Contracting Squadron/LGCS, Langley AFB, Virginia. This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E6-13670 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Additions to and Deletions from Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List a product and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete a product and a service previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received on or Before:* September 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *SKennerly@jwod.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following product and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Product *Product/NSN:* Fluorescent Highlighter Set (GSA Global Supply only), 7520-01-383-7959. *NPA:* San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, Texas. *Contracting Activity:* Office Supplies & Paper Products Acquisition Center, New York, New York. Services *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services, Port Isabel Detention Center, 27991 Buena Vista Road, Port Isabel, Texas. *NPA:* Mavagi Enterprises, Inc., San Antonio, Texas. *Contracting Activity:* DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Dallas, Texas. *Service Type/Location:* Full Food Service, Fort Drum, 45 West Street, Fort Drum, New York. *NPA:* Jefferson County Chapter, NYSARC, Watertown, New York. *Contracting Activity:* Army Contracting Agency, Fort Drum, New York. Deletions Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. End of Certification The following product and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Products *Product/NSNs:* Pad, Floor Polishing Machine 7910-00-985-6851 7910-00-985-6853 7910-00-985-6855 7910-00-985-6856 7910-00-985-6857 7910-00-985-6858 7910-00-985-6859 7910-00-985-6860 7910-00-985-6861 7910-00-985-6862 7910-00-985-6863 7910-00-985-6864 7910-00-985-6866 7910-00-985-6868 7910-00-985-6869 7910-00-985-6870 7910-00-985-6871 7910-00-985-6872 7910-00-985-6873 7910-00-985-6874 7910-00-985-6875 7910-00-985-6876 7910-00-985-6800 *NPA:* Beacon Lighthouse, Inc., Wichita Falls, Texas. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, Texas. *Product/NSNs:* Floor Scrubbing Machine Pad 7910-00-NIB-0021—Lime, 19 in. diam., High Speed 7910-00-NIB-0022—Lime, 21 in. diam., High Speed 7910-00-NIB-0023—Dark Green, 22 in. diam., High Speed *NPA:* Beacon Lighthouse, Inc., Wichita Falls, Texas. *Contracting Activity:* GSA, Southwest Supply Center, Fort Worth, Texas. Service *Service Type/Location:* Janitorial/Custodial, Military Traffic Management Command, 1312th Medium Port Command, Compton, California. *NPA:* None currently authorized. *Contracting Activity:* Department of the Army. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E6-13671 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Correction of Notice of Addition AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Correction to Notice of Additions to the Procurement List. SUMMARY: In the document appearing on page 46187, FR Doc E6-13162, Procurement List Additions and Deletions, in the issue of August 11, 2006, in the third column, the Committee published addition of Grounds/Custodial Security Services, Lake Okeechobee and Outlying Areas, Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Following the publication of this Notice, the Committee determined that the response to comments received in response to the **Federal Register** Notice of Proposed Addition had not been published in the August 11 Notice as required. The Committee therefore is publishing the Service again with the response to comments received. All other information remains the same. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:
(703)603-7740, Fax:
(703)603-0655, or e-mail *SKennerly@jwod.gov.* Addition *Service Type/Location:* Grounds/Custodial/Security Services, Lake Okeechobee and Outlying Areas, Army Corps of Engineers, Lake Okeechobee, Florida. *NPA:* Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida. *Contracting Activity:* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida. The following material is in response to comments received on this proposed addition. This information was provided to the Committee for their consideration. Comments were received from the current contractor, a subcontractor for the service, an employee of the subcontractor, and a frequent camper on parkland involved in this service. All these persons objected to addition of the service to the Procurement List. The service to be performed by a nonprofit agency has been removed from the coverage of the current contract. The current contractor claimed that removal of these functions will result in a significant reduction in the contractor's revenue base and severely affect its financial stability, while making it less competitive to recover the revenue elsewhere. The period for which the contractor submitted revenues to the Committee includes windfall revenues due to increased hurricane activity during that period. Removal of these windfalls reduces the estimated revenue loss attributable to the addition of the service to the Procurement List to a level which the Committee does not normally consider to be an adverse impact on a contractor. The subcontractor and its employee indicated that addition of the service to the Procurement List would have a serious economic impact on the company, its workers, and the depressed rural area where the service is performed. The nonprofit agency which will be performing the service will do some subcontracting, which could mitigate this economic impact. In addition, people with severe disabilities have an unemployment rate of approximately 70 percent, which exceeds the unemployment rate of the persons likely to be adversely affected by this addition to the Procurement List. Consequently, the affected persons are more likely than those who will be employed on the project to find other work. Given that circumstance, and the Committee's mission to create work for people with severe disabilities, the Committee believes that the employment benefits of adding this service to the Procurement List outweigh the possible disadvantages the addition may cause. The subcontractor and its employee also raised several safety and technical issues concerning performance of the service by people with severe disabilities. They noted that some mowing must be done on a high levee with extremely steep sides and surrounded by deep canals, and other mowing is done in park areas filled with expensive recreational vehicles and other easily damaged obstacles, as the frequent camper also noted. The subcontractor employee asked if the nonprofit agency has any experience in doing this kind of work. The subcontractor implied that acquisition of the equipment needed to do the work would put a further strain on the national budget. The nonprofit agency has several grounds maintenance and custodial contracts with the State of Florida, so they are familiar with this kind of work. They are in the process of obtaining the specialized equipment needed to do the work and hiring qualified personnel. The Government will not pay extra to allow the nonprofit agency to acquire this equipment, which includes enclosed cab tractors with built-in and included safety equipment. The nonprofit agency will conduct extensive safety and other training to assure the workers are fully capable of doing the work. More experienced workers will be used in the steeper areas, and the use of people with severe disabilities will be phased in to all facets of the work, which includes custodial and security as well as grounds maintenance services, to assure that all workers are able to do the work safely and efficiently, with little or no damage to persons or property. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E6-13672 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-427-819] Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On February 15, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** its preliminary results of administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on low enriched uranium (“LEU”) from France for the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004 ( *see Notice of Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 71 FR 7924 (February 15, 2006) (“ *LEU 2004 Preliminary Results* ”)). The Department has now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Based on our analysis of the comments received, the Department has not revised the net subsidy rate for Eurodif S.A. (“Eurodif”)/Compagnie Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires (“COGEMA”), the producer/exporter of subject merchandise covered by this review. For further discussion of our analysis of the comments received for these final results, *see* the August 14, 2006, Issues and Decision Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, concerning the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium from France (“LEU 2004 Decision Memorandum”). The final net subsidy rate for Eurodif/COGEMA is listed below in “Final Results of Review.” EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On February 15, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the preliminary results for this review ( *see LEU 2004 Preliminary Results* ). We invited interested parties to comment on the results. On March 20, 2006, we received case briefs from petitioners 1 and Eurodif/COGEMA and the Government of France (“GOF”), the respondents. On March 23, 2006, and March 24, 2006, we received rebuttal briefs from respondents and petitioners, respectively. On May 2, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** a notice of extension of the deadline for the final results of this administrative review. *See Low Enriched Uranium from France: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review* , 71 FR 25813 (May 2, 2006). 1 Petitioners are the United States Enrichment Corporation (“USEC”) and USEC Inc. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which a review was specifically requested. Accordingly, this review covers only Eurodif/COGEMA. The review covers the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, and two programs. Scope of the Order The product covered by this order is all LEU. LEU is enriched uranium hexafluoride
(UF6)with a U235 product assay of less than 20 percent that has not been converted into another chemical form, such as UO2, or fabricated into nuclear fuel assemblies, regardless of the means by which the LEU is produced (including LEU produced through the down-blending of highly enriched uranium). Certain merchandise is outside the scope of this order. Specifically, this order does not cover enriched uranium hexafluoride with a U235 assay of 20 percent or greater, also known as highly enriched uranium. In addition, fabricated LEU is not covered by the scope of this order. For purposes of this order, fabricated uranium is defined as enriched uranium dioxide (UO2), whether or not contained in nuclear fuel rods or assemblies. Natural uranium concentrates
(U3O8)with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent and natural uranium concentrates converted into uranium hexafluoride with a U235 concentration of no greater than 0.711 percent are not covered by the scope of this order. Also excluded from this order is LEU owned by a foreign utility end-user and imported into the United States by or for such end-user solely for purposes of conversion by a U.S. fabricator into uranium dioxide
(UO2)and/or fabrication into fuel assemblies so long as the uranium dioxide and/or fuel assemblies deemed to incorporate such imported LEU
(i)remain in the possession and control of the U.S. fabricator, the foreign end-user, or their designated transporter(s) while in U.S. customs territory, and
(ii)are re-exported within eighteen
(18)months of entry of the LEU for consumption by the end-user in a nuclear reactor outside the United States. Such entries must be accompanied by the certifications of the importer and end user. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 2844.20.0020. Subject merchandise may also enter under 2844.20.0030, 2844.20.0050, and 2844.40.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the LEU 2004 Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues contained in that decision memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in that public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete copy of the LEU 2004 Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the decision memorandum are identical in content. Final Results of Review In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an *ad valorem* subsidy rate for Eurodif/COGEMA. For the review period, we determine the net subsidy rate to be 5.06 percent *ad valorem* . As discussed in Comment 4 of the LEU 2004 Decision Memorandum, we have been enjoined from liquidating entries of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we do not intend to issue liquidation instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) for entries made during the period January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004, until such time as the injunctions, issued on June 24, 2002, November 1, 2004, and October 12, 2005, are lifted. We will, however, instruct CBP, within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review, to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at 5.06 percent *ad valorem* of the f.o.b. price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from the reviewed entity, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results. We will also instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the investigation. *See Amended Final Determination and Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Low Enriched Uranium from France* , 67 FR 6689 (February 13, 2002). The “all others” rate shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned this rate is requested. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 14, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX I—ISSUES AND DECISION MEMORANDUM I. SUBSIDIES VALUATION INFORMATION A. Calculation of Ad Valorem Rates II. ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS A. Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies 1. Purchases at Prices that Constitute “More Than Adequate Remuneration” 2. Exoneration/Reimbursement of Corporate Income Taxes III. TOTAL AD VALOREM RATE IV. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS Comment 1: Adequacy of Remuneration Comment 2: SWU Benchmark Comment 3: Rescission Comment 4: Draft Customs Instructions [FR Doc. E6-13683 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Mission Statement; Secretarial Business Development Mission to China; November 13-17, 2006 AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. I. Mission Description Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez will lead a senior-level U.S. business delegation to Beijing and Shanghai, China, November 13-17, 2006, to promote U.S. exports to China's leading industry sectors. The Mission will focus on assisting U.S. companies that are experienced exporters enter the Chinese market for the first time as well as assist U.S. companies operating in China increase their current level of exports. The Mission will help participating firms gain market information, make business and government contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, all geared towards the goal of helping U.S. firms expand their exports to China. The Mission will include business-to-business matchmaking appointments with local companies, as well as meetings with key government officials, and American and local chambers of commerce. The Mission will additionally provide a platform for policy and commercial issues—including intellectual property rights protection, transparency, and rule-of-law—that U.S. companies face in the Chinese market. The delegation will be comprised of U.S. firms representing a broad-cross section of U.S. industries with commercial interests in China. Senior representatives of the U.S. Trade Development Agency (USTDA), the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), will be invited to participate, to provide information and counseling on their programs as they relate to the Chinese market. II. Commercial Setting China is the fastest-growing major market in the world. It is now the third-largest trading nation and America's third-largest trading partner. Total bilateral trade with the U.S. in 2005 was $243 billion. Total U.S. exports to China in 2005 were $41 billion, an increase of 19 percent over 2004. Through May 2006, U.S. exports have grown 37 percent over the same period last year. As America's fourth-largest export market, China provides excellent opportunities for U.S. companies in a number of industries. For instance, China's telecommunications products and services import market is estimated to exceed $20 billion this year. Other strong industry import markets include a $10 billion market for semiconductor equipment, water and wastewater treatment market of $8 billion, a $7 billion market for automotive components, and a medical equipment market that will exceed $4 billion this year. In addition, as one of the world's major energy users, China's power generation equipment import market is expected to surpass $5 billion in 2006. Other leading export sectors identified by the U.S. Embassy in China include, air traffic control, safety and security, mining, construction, education, and machinery. While many U.S. companies have been extremely successful in China, some have struggled or failed. Huge opportunities exist in China, but the business environment in the country remains difficult. Major challenges include intellectual property rights violations, a lack of transparency in rules and regulations, and inadequate rule-of-law. Some U.S. companies, especially small and medium-sized companies, underestimate the difficulty of entering and succeeding in this market. The Mission is designed to assist U.S. companies to identify the opportunities and address the challenges. III. Mission Goals The Business Development Mission will assist U.S. businesses initiate or expand their exports to China's leading industry sectors by making business-to-business introductions, providing market access information, and providing access to government decision makers. The Mission aims to: • Assist U.S. companies that are experienced exporters enter China for the first time; • Assist U.S. companies already operating in China increase their business there; • Address obstacles to trade with China, including transparency, intellectual property rights protection, and rule of law; • Provide information on U.S. Government trade financing programs, through the inclusion of representatives from USTDA, Ex-Im and SBA. IV. Mission Scenario The Business Development Mission to China will include stops in Beijing and Shanghai. In each city, participants will: • Meet with potential buyers, agents/distributors and partners; • Meet with high-level government officials; and • Attend briefings conducted by embassy officials on the economic and commercial climates. Receptions and other business events will be organized to provide mission participants with further opportunities to speak with local business and government representatives, as well as U.S. business executives living and working in the region. V. Timetable November 12-17, 2006 Nov 12: Arrive Beijing. Nov 13: Briefing on market conditions by U.S. Government officials. Briefing by AmCham members and official meetings. Nov 14: Matchmaking with local companies and official meetings. Reception hosted by Ambassador. Nov 15: Travel to Shanghai. Briefing on market conditions by U.S. Government officials and AmCham members. Official meetings. Nov 16: Matchmaking with local companies. Reception hosted by Consul General. Nov 17: Mission concludes. VI. Criteria for Participants' Selection The following criteria would apply to participant selection: • Demonstrated export experience; • Relevance of a company's business line to mission goals; • Suitability of a company's products or services to the Chinese market and likelihood of a participating company increasing its exports to China within a year as a result of this mission; • Timeliness of the company's signed application materials and participation agreement (including the participation fee) * ; * Upon completion of the application submission and review process, companies that have been selected to participate will be required to complete a participation agreement and pay a participation fee. • Target of 20 to 30 participating companies on the Mission; • Rank/seniority of the designated company representative; • Diversity of company size, type, location, demographics, and traditional under-representation in business; • Provision of adequate information on the company's products and/or services, and the company's primary market objectives, in order to facilitate appropriate pre-qualification of company by embassy staff; and • Certification that the company meets Departmental guidelines for participation. A company's products or services should be either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least fifty-one percent U.S. content. The participation fee will be $8,500 per firm, which includes one representative. The fee for each additional firm representative is $3,000. The option to participate in the Mission is also being offered to U.S.-based firms in China or the region; the same fee structure applies. Expenses for travel, lodging, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each mission participant. Any partisan political activities (including political contributions) of an applicant are entirely irrelevant to the selection process. VII. Timeframe for Recruitment and Applications Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the **Federal Register** , posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar ( *http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/tmcal.html* ) and other Internet Web sites, press releases to general and trade media, direct mail, broadcast fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows. The Commercial Service will explore and welcome outreach assistance from other interested organizations, including other U.S. Government agencies. Applications for the Mission will be made available July 24, 2006 through September 14, 2006. Applications can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Business Liaison (Phone: 202-482-1360, e-mail *chinamission@doc.gov* ) or from the Mission Web site at *http://www.export.gov/chinamission* . The application deadline is September 15, 2006. Completed applications should be submitted to the Office of Business Liaison. Applications received after September 15, 2006 will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. *Domestic Contact Information:* The Office of Business Liaison, Tel: 202-482-1360. Patrick Kirwan, Director, Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee Secretariat. [FR Doc. E6-13772 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-25-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for nominations of members to serve on the Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. SUMMARY: NIST invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Board). The terms of some of the members of the Board will soon expire. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committee, in addition to nominations already received. DATES: Please submit nominations on or before September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-948-3716. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://www.quality.nist.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program and Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-2361; FAX—301-948-3716; or via e-mail at *harry.hertz@nist.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Information The Board was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). Objectives and Duties 1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)in administering the Award. The Board will make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as it deems necessary. 2. The Board shall provide a written annual report on the results of Award activities to the Secretary of Commerce, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process. 3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST and the Secretary of Commerce. Membership 1. The Board will consist of approximately eleven members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of quality management. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, education, health care industries, and the nonprofit sector including government. The Board will include members familiar with the quality improvement operations of organizations representing manufacturing, service, small business, education, health care, and the nonprofit sector. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Board of Overseers. 2. The Board will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Board member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 *et seq.* 2. The Board will meet twice annually, except that additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one day in duration. 3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties. II. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are sought from the private sector as described above. 2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, and health care. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Board membership. Dated: August 14, 2006. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-13675 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for nominations of members to serve on the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. SUMMARY: NIST invites and requests nomination of individuals for appointment to the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Judges Panel). The terms of some of the members of the Judges Panel will soon expire. NIST will consider nominations received in response to this notice for appointment to the Committee, in addition to nominations already received. DATES: Please submit nominations on or before September 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020. Nominations may also be submitted via FAX to 301-948-3716. Additional information regarding the Committee, including its charter, current membership list, and executive summary may be found on its electronic home page at: *http://www.quality.nist.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program and Designated Federal Official, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1020; telephone 301-975-2361; FAX—301-948-3716; or via e-mail at *harry.hertz@nist.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Judges Panel Information The Judges Panel was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) , the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.2), The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987 (Public Law 101-107). Objectives and Duties 1. The Judges Panel will ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award selection process by reviewing the results of examiners' scoring of written applications, and then voting on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants. 2. The Judges Panel will ensure that individuals on site visit teams for the Award finalists have no conflict of interest with respect to the finalists. The Panel will also review recommendations from site visits, and recommend Award recipients. 3. The Judges Panel will function solely as an advisory body, and will comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 4. The Panel will report to the Director of NIST. Membership 1. The Judges Panel is composed of at least nine, and not more than twelve, members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, education, health care industries, and the nonprofit sector including government. The Panel will include members familiar with the quality improvement operations of organizations representing manufacturing, service, small business, education, health care, and the nonprofit sector. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Judges Panel. 2. The Judges Panel will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Panel member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year. Miscellaneous 1. Members of the Judges Panel shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 *et seq.* 2. The Judges Panel will meet four times per year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one to four days in duration. In addition, each Judge must attend an annual three-day Examiner training course. 3. Committee meetings are closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of title 5, United States Code. Since the members of the Judges Panel examine records and discuss Award applicant data, the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person may be privileged or confidential. II. Nomination Information 1. Nominations are sought from all U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, and health care as described above. 2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education and health care organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on Federal advisory boards and Federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on the Judges Panel, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Judges Panel. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seventeen days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, reading Baldrige applications, and so forth, in furtherance of their Committee duties. 3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Judges Panel membership. Dated: August 14, 2006. James E. Hill, Acting Deputy Director. [FR Doc. E6-13676 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 080306B] Endangered Species; File No. 1572 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Amanda Southwood, Department of Biology and Marine Biology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 has been issued a permit to take loggerhead ( *Caretta caretta* ), green (Chelonia mydas), and Kemp's ridley ( *Lepidochelys kempii* ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 12, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 18726) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). The purpose of the research is to assess the physiological response of loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles to entanglement in fishing gear, identify post-release mortality events, and integrate these data to assess the feasibility of using biochemical indices as predictors of post-release mortality. The research will also provide information on the movements of sea turtles utilizing the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Researchers would annually capture up to 15 loggerhead, 25 green, and 5 Kemp's ridley sea turtles for a 3-year period using gillnets. Animals would be measured, weighed, blood sampled, passive integrated transponder tagged, satellite transmitter tagged, VHF tagged and tracked, have their cloacal body temperature taken, and be released. The level of post-release mortality of turtles that are part of the physiological stress portion of the research may be high and reach up to 30 percent (9 animals per year or 27 over the course of the permit, all species combined). The principal investigator believes that current fishery mortality estimates are too high; therefore the study is being permitted for one year to gain a better understanding of actual mortality levels. Research after year one is contingent on the results of the first year and will only be authorized if NMFS determines further research is warranted and can be justified. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: August 14, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-13692 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Sea Grant Review Panel AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant Review Panel. The meeting will have several purposes. Panel members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea Grant College Program in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described below: DATES: The announced meeting is scheduled for: Tuesday, August 29, 2006. ADDRESSES: Conference Call. Public access is available at SSMC Bldg 3, ROOM # 12836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Brown, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11717, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910,
(301)713-2438. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panel, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Public Law 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice. The agenda for the meeting is as follows: Wednesday, August 30, 2006—1 to 4 p.m. Agenda I. Old Business. II. Sea Grant Staffing. III. NRC Report. This meeting will be open to the public. Dated: August 11, 2006. Mark Brown, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. [FR Doc. E6-13696 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KA-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 080306A] Pacific Albacore Tuna Fisheries; Updating Annual Vessel List AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NMFS revises the methodology to create a vessel list at the beginning of each calendar year of vessels eligible to fish for albacore tuna in Canadian waters. The vessel list reverts to zero vessels on December 31 of each year, unless NMFS receives a notice for a vessel to be added to the list for the upcoming year, with the requisite information. This notice clarifies NMFS' original intention that the vessel list remain valid for a single calendar year. Revising the way the list is created and updating the list every year is intended to facilitate the United States' obligation to annually provide Canada a current list of U. S. vessels that are likely to fish albacore off the coast of Canada. ADDRESSES: Submit requests to be added to the vessel list of those vessels desiring to fish in Canadian waters to: • E-mail: *albacore.fish@noaa.gov* . • Mail: Mark Helvey, Assistant Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. • Phone: (562)980-4024. • Fax:
(562)980-4047. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Helvey, Southwest Region, NMFS,
(562)980-4040. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1981 Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges (Treaty), as amended in 2002, establishes a number of obligations for both countries to control reciprocal fishing in waters of one country by vessels of the other country. One obligation is that each country is required to annually provide to the other country a list of its fishing vessels which propose to fish for Pacific albacore tuna off the coast of the other county for each fishing season. As described in the 2004 final rule in 69 FR 31531, published on June 4, 2004, and at 50 CFR 300.172, the list is to include vessel and owner name, address, and phone number; USCG documentation number (or state registration if not documented); vessel operator (if different from the owner) and his or her address with phone number. Each U.S. vessel must be on the list for at least 7 days prior to engaging in fishing under the Treaty. This is intended to ensure that both countries have equal information as to eligible vessels, and U.S. and Canadian enforcement offices can obtain lists of eligible vessels that are up to date to facilitate enforcement. Vessel owners who wish their vessel to remain on or be added to the vessel list must contact NMFS at the ADDRESSES section listed above and provide the required information. NMFS will notify fishermen by a confirmation letter or email that they are on the vessel list. This revision to procedures is necessary for NMFS to reconstruct the 2006 vessel list. Previous to the 2006 fishing season, NMFS did not require owners of any albacore fishing vessels that wanted their vessels to be on the list of U. S. vessels eligible to fish for albacore tuna in Canadian waters under the Treaty to contact NMFS. Instead, NMFS relied on a lengthy list created from information provided by industry that was not readily verifiable nor did it indicate to NMFS whether each vessel owner actually wished to be eligible to fish for albacore tuna in Canada for any given year. The result was that NMFS did not have an effective and efficient way of annually providing the Canadian government an updated vessel list of vessels owners who intended to fish for albacore tuna in Canada for a particular fishing season. NMFS is undertaking rulemaking to clarify the requirements of 50 CFR 300.172. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: August 11, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-13693 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, September 1, 2006. Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. Status: Closed. Matters to Be Considered: Surveillance Matters. For Further Information Contact: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100. Eileen A. Donovan, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-7044 Filed 8-16-06; 11:50 am]
Connectionstraces to 65
Traces to 65 documents
U.S. Code
CFR
49 references not yet in our index
  • 21 CFR 172
  • 1 CFR 51
  • 9 CFR 430.1
  • 40 CFR 725.421(d)
  • 29 CFR 100
  • Pub. L. 104-134
  • 28 CFR 14
  • 31 CFR 285
  • 29 CFR 102
  • EO 12146
  • 5 CFR 831.1801-831
  • 5 CFR 845.401-845
  • 31 USC 3720D
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 33 CFR 138
  • Pub. L. 109-241
  • 33 CFR 165
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • Pub. L. 107-295
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 40 CFR 300
  • 42 USC 9601-9657
  • 44 CFR 64
  • 44 CFR 59
  • 44 CFR 10
  • 10 CFR 36
  • 14 CFR 39
  • Pub. L. 109-171
  • 40 CFR 55
  • 427 U.S. 246
  • Pub. L. 101-549
  • 43 CFR 415
  • 50 CFR 17
  • 50 CFR 424.14(b)
  • 50 CFR 424.14(a)
+ 9 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final rule
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 172.785
U.S.C.§ 348
C.F.R.§ 170.3
C.F.R.§ 171.1
U.S.C.§ 321
Stat.Public Law 104–133
U.S.C.§ 3701
U.S.C.§ 5514
SCOTUS427 U.S. 246
Cite21 CFR 172
Cite1 CFR 51
Cites 114 · 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.