Notices. Notice of public workshop

5,400 words·~25 min read·/register/2006/08/21/06-7028

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

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2006N-0320] Molecular Methods in Immunohematology; Public Workshop AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public workshop. The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is announcing a public workshop entitled “Molecular Methods in Immunohematology.” The purpose of the public workshop is to gather and review current information on scientific developments that might enhance immunohematologic testing of blood donor or patient blood samples as part of pre-transfusion compatibility testing, or in determination and management of feto-maternal blood group incompatibilities. *Date and Time* : The public workshop will be held on September 25, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and September 26, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. *Location* : The public workshop will be held at the Lister Hill Center Auditorium, bldg. 38A, National Institutes of Health, 8800 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894. *Contact Person* : Rhonda Dawson, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-302), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6129, FAX: 301-827-2843, e-mail: *rhonda.dawson@fda.hhs.gov* . *Registration* : Mail or fax your registration information (including name, title, firm name, address, telephone and fax numbers) to the contact person by September 15, 2006. There is no registration fee for the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. Registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided on a space available basis beginning at 8:00 a.m. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Rhonda Dawson (see *Contact Person* ) at least 7 days in advance of the workshop. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public workshop will feature presentations by national and international experts from government, academic institutions, and industry. The main goal of the workshop is to determine potential applications of molecular methods to improve safety in transfusion medicine by overcoming current limitations in the field of immunohematology, namely, the lack of reagent grade antibodies, both polyclonal and monoclonal; variability of reactivity of monoclonal antibodies as compared to polyclonal antibodies; and inherent limitations in the hemagglutination test. Topics to be discussed include the following:

(1)Use of molecular methods in platelet and leukocyte typing,

(2)use of phage display technology in place of routine hemagglutination tests,

(3)potential advantages of using molecular methods in donor screening and patient typing,

(4)use of molecular methods to resolve unusual serologic findings,

(5)potential use of molecular methods in the manufacture of immunohematology reagents, and

(6)current limitations in the use of molecular methods. *Transcripts* : Transcripts of the public workshop may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 6-30, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a cost of 10 cents per page. A transcript of the public workshop will be available on the Internet at *http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/workshop-min.htm* . Dated: August 14, 2006. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. E6-13695 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Reimbursement Rates for Calendar Year 2006 AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Director of Indian Health Service (IHS), under the authority of sections 321(a) and 322(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 248 and 249(b)), Public Law 83-568 (42 U.S.C. 2001 (a)), and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.* ), has approved the following rates for inpatient and outpatient medical care provided by IHS facilities for Calendar Year 2006 for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and beneficiaries of other Federal programs. The Medicare Part A inpatient rates are excluded from the table below as they are paid based on the prospective payment system. Since the inpatient rates set forth below do not include all physician services and practitioner services, additional payment may be available to the extent that those services meet applicable requirements. Public Law 106-554, section 432, dated December 21, 2000, authorized IHS facilities to file Medicare Part B claims with the carrier for payment for physician and certain other practitioner services provided on or after July 1, 2001. Calendar year 2006 Inpatient Hospital Per Diem Rate (Excludes Physician/Practitioner Services): Lower 48 States $1,660 Alaska 2,131 Outpatient Per Visit Rate (Excluding Medicare): Lower 48 States 242 Alaska 406 Outpatient Per Visit Rate (Medicare): Lower 48 States 193 Alaska 348 Medicare Part B Inpatient Ancillary Per Diem Rate: Lower 48 States 340 Alaska 625 Outpatient Surgery Rate (Medicare) Established Medicare rates for freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers. Effective Date for Calendar Year 2006 Rates Consistent with previous annual rate revisions, the Calendar Year 2006 rates will be effective for services provided on/or after January 1, 2006 to the extent consistent with payment authorities including the applicable Medicaid State plan. Dated: June 27, 2006. Charles W. Grim, Assistant Surgeon General, Director, Indian Health Service. [FR Doc. E6-13785 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of Inspector General Publication of OIG's Guidelines for Evaluating State False Claims Acts AGENCY: Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Under section 1909 of the Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 1396h, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services is required to determine, in consultation with the Attorney General, whether a State has in effect a law relating to false or fraudulent claims submitted to a State Medicaid program that meets certain enumerated requirements. If the Inspector General determines that a State law meets these requirements, the State medical assistance percentage, with respect to any amounts recovered under a State action brought under such a law, shall be increased by 10 percentage points. This notice sets forth the Inspector General's guidelines for evaluating whether a State law meets the requirements of section 1909 of the Act. DATES: *Effective Date:* These guidelines are effective on August 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roderick T. Chen, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General,

(202)401-4134, or Joel Schaer, Office of External Affairs,

(202)619-0089. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 1909 of the Act, added by section 6031 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-171), creates a financial incentive for States to enact legislation that establishes liability to the State for individuals or entities that submit false or fraudulent claims to the State Medicaid program. This incentive takes the form of an increase in the State's share of any amounts recovered from a State action brought under a qualifying law. 1 In order for a State to qualify for this incentive, the State law must meet certain enumerated requirements, as determined by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney General. 1 The increase results from a 10-percentage point decrease in the Federal share of any recovery from a State action brought under a qualifying law. Medicaid, authorized under Title XIX of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396-1396v, is a joint Federal and State program that pays for medical and other related benefits provided to needy beneficiaries. States that participate in Medicaid administer their own programs within broad Federal guidelines and receive matching funds from the Federal government. The Federal share generally varies between 50 percent and 83 percent, depending on the State per capita income. False or fraudulent claims presented to State Medicaid programs by participating providers and others may give rise to civil liability under the Federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733. Under the FCA, any person who knowingly submits a false or fraudulent claim to a State Medicaid program is liable to the Federal Government for three times the amount of the Federal Government's damages plus penalties of $5,000 to $10,000 for each false or fraudulent claim. Any recovery of damages to the State Medicaid program will be shared with the State in the same proportion as the State's share of the costs of the Medicaid program. For example, if a State's Medicaid share is 40 percent, then the State would be entitled to receive 40 percent of the damages and the Federal Government would retain 60 percent of the damages. Under the *qui tam* provisions of the FCA, private persons (known as relators) may file lawsuits in Federal court against individuals and/or entities that defraud the Federal government by filing false or fraudulent Medicaid claims. The Department of Justice

(DOJ)has an opportunity to investigate the relator's allegations, and DOJ may intervene and take over the prosecution of the action. If DOJ chooses not to intervene, the relator has the right to conduct the action. In general, with respect to recoveries of Federal damages and penalties in cases in which DOJ has intervened, the relator is entitled to between 15 and 25 percent of the recovery of Federal damages and penalties depending upon the extent to which the relator substantially contributed to the case. In general, the relator is entitled to between 25 and 30 percent of any recoveries of Federal damages and penalties if DOJ has not intervened in the case. Because the FCA applies only to false claims against the Federal Government, the relator is not entitled to a share of the State portion of a Medicaid recovery under the FCA. Many States have enacted their own false claims acts that establish civil liability to the State for individuals and entities that submit false or fraudulent claims to the State Medicaid program. Generally, these laws include *qui tam* provisions that reward relators with a share of the State portion of recoveries in cases of Medicaid fraud. Currently, if a State obtains a recovery as the result of a State action relating to false or fraudulent claims submitted to its Medicaid program, it must share the damages recovered with the Federal Government in the same proportion as the Federal Government's share in the cost of the State Medicaid program. For example, if a State's Medicaid share is 40 percent, then the State would retain 40 percent of any damages recovered from an individual or entity that has defrauded Medicaid, and the Federal Government would be entitled to the remaining 60 percent of damages. II. Section 1909 of the Social Security Act In order to encourage States to pursue Medicaid fraud, Congress added a new section 1909 to the Act, effective January 1, 2007. Under this section, if a State has in effect a State false claims act that meets certain enumerated requirements, the Federal medical assistance percentage will be decreased by 10 percentage points with respect to any amount recovered under a State action brought under such a law. Therefore, the State's share of any recovery in an action under such a law will be increased by 10 percentage points. For example, if a State has a qualifying State false claims act and the State's Medicaid share is 50 percent, the State would be entitled to 60 percent of the amount of the recovery, while the Federal Government would receive the remaining 40 percent. Section 1909(b) of the Act requires the Inspector General to determine, in consultation with the Attorney General, whether a State has in effect a false claims act that meets the following requirements: 1. The law must establish liability to the State for false or fraudulent claims described in 31 U.S.C. 3729 with respect to any expenditure described in section 1903(a) of the Act; 2. The law must contain provisions that are at least as effective in rewarding and facilitating *qui tam* actions for false or fraudulent claims as those described in 31 U.S.C. 3730-3732; 3. The law must contain a requirement for filing an action under seal for 60 days with review by the State Attorney General; and 4. The law must contain a civil penalty that is not less than the amount of the civil penalty authorized under 31 U.S.C. 3729. A State that, as of January 1, 2007, has a law in effect that meets the enumerated requirements shall be considered in compliance with such requirements so long as the law continues to meet such requirements. The effective date of section 1909 of the Act is January 1, 2007. Thus, a State with a law in effect that meets the enumerated requirements will qualify for a 10 percentage point increase in its share of any amounts recovered from a State action brought under the law if the recovery is received on or after January 1, 2007. A State may enact a law before, on, or after January 1, 2007. Furthermore, the action that gives rise to the recovery may be commenced before, on, or after January 1, 2007. As long as the State's law meets the enumerated requirements on or after January 1, 2007, and the recovery from the action brought under the qualifying law is received by the State on or after January 1, 2007, the State will qualify for a 10 percent increase in its share of the amount recovered. It is important to note that section 1909 of the Act does not require a State to have in effect a false claims act or to enact a false claims act that meets these minimum requirements. States may choose not to enact false claims acts, or may choose to enact false claims acts that do not meet the enumerated requirements. However, a State that does not have such a law in effect will not qualify for the 10 percentage point increase in its share of any recoveries from an action brought under such a law. III. OIG Guidelines for Evaluating State False Claims Acts Section 1909(b) of the Act sets forth four requirements that a State law must meet if the State is to qualify for the 10 percentage point increase in any State Medicaid share recovered under the law. The Inspector General is required to determine, in consultation with the Attorney General, whether a State law meets these requirements. After reviewing section 1909 of the Act and consulting with DOJ, OIG has developed guidelines to use in evaluating whether a State law meets the enumerated requirements. It is important to note that these guidelines are not model statutory provisions. OIG is not requiring any specific language to be included in State false claims acts. Rather, the guidelines reflect the provisions relevant to OIG's review of whether a State law meets the requirements of section 1909(b) of the Act. A. Liability for False or Fraudulent Claims Under section 1909(b)(1) of the Act, the State law must establish liability to the State for false or fraudulent claims described in 31 U.S.C. 3729, with respect to any expenditure described in section 1903(a) of the Act. Section 1903(a) of the Act describes expenditures related to State Medicaid plans, including all expenditures for medical assistance under a State Medicaid plan. When evaluating a State law to determine whether it meets the requirements of section 1909(b)(1) of the Act, OIG will consider whether the law provides for the following: 1. Liability to the State for false or fraudulent claims with respect to Medicaid program expenditures, including: • Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to the Medicaid program; • Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Medicaid program; • Conspiring to defraud the Medicaid program by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid; • Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Medicaid program. 2. Definitions for the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” meaning that a person, with respect to information:

(a)Has actual knowledge of the information;

(b)acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or

(c)acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information. In addition, no proof of specific intent to defraud should be required. B. Qui Tam Provisions Under section 1909(b)(2) of the Act, a State law must contain provisions that are at least as effective in rewarding and facilitating *qui tam* actions for false or fraudulent claims as those described in 31 U.S.C. 3730-3732. When evaluating a State law to determine whether it meets the requirements of section 1909(b)(2) of the Act, OIG will consider whether the law provides for the following: 1. A provision that authorizes a person (relator) to bring a civil action for a violation of the State false claims act for the person and for the State, which will be brought in the name of the State. 2. A provision that requires a copy of complaint and written disclosure of material evidence and information to be served on the State Attorney General in accordance with State Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. A provision that provides that when a relator brings a qui tam action, no person other than the State may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action. 4. Provisions that set forth rights of parties to *qui tam* actions, including: • If the State proceeds with the action, the State has primary responsibility in the action, but the relator shall have the right to continue as a party to the action; and • If the State elects not to proceed with the action, the relator may conduct the action but the State may intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause. 5. Provisions that reward a relator with a share of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, including: • If the State proceeds with an action brought by the *qui tam* relator, the relator receives at least 15 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, and may receive a higher percentage depending on the relator's contribution to the prosecution of the action; • If the State does not proceed with an action, the relator receives at least 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement, and may receive a higher percentage depending on the relator's contribution to the prosecution of the action; and • The court is authorized to award the relator an amount for reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, to be awarded against the defendant. 6. A statute of limitations period not shorter than 6 years after the date of the violation is committed, or 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the State official charged with the responsibility to act in the circumstances, whichever occurs last. 7. A provision that establishes the burden of proof, for each of the elements of the cause of action including damages, no greater than a preponderance of the evidence. 8. A provision that provides a cause of action for relators who suffer retribution from employers for whistleblower activities related to the State false claims act. OIG is required to consider whether the State law is at least as effective in rewarding and facilitating *qui tam* actions when compared to the provisions at 31 U.S.C. 3730-3732. State false claims acts may include procedural rights, reductions in relator awards, jurisdictional bars, and other qui tam provisions similar to those found in the FCA that do not conflict with the requirements of section 1909(b)(2) of the Act. However, if such provisions are more restrictive than the provisions in the FCA, OIG may determine that a State law is not as effective in rewarding or facilitating *qui tam* actions. OIG will make such determinations on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with DOJ. C. Seal Provisions Under section 1909(b)(3) of the Act, a State law must contain a requirement for filing an action under seal for 60 days with review by the State Attorney General. When evaluating whether a State law meets the requirements of section 1909(b)(3) of the Act, OIG will consider whether the law provides a provision that requires the complaint to be filed in camera and to remain under seal for at least 60 days. In addition, OIG will consider whether the State law's seal provisions operate in a way that conflict with the Federal seal in a pendant FCA case. D. Civil Penalty Provisions Under section 1909(b)(4) of the Act, the State law must contain a civil penalty that is not less than the amount of the civil penalty authorized under 31 U.S.C. 3729. OIG will review a State law to determine if these provisions include a provision that sets at least treble damages (or double damages in instances of timely self-disclosure and full cooperation) and civil penalties at amounts of at least $5,000 to $10,000 per false claim. 2 2 DOJ is authorized to adjust the civil penalties under the FCA for inflation and has issued regulations that raise the FCA penalties. *See* Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (Oct. 5, 1990); 28 CFR 85.3. However, the statutory provisions of the FCA identify the range of civil penalties as $5,000 to $10,000, and OIG will review State laws based on those statutory provisions. IV. OIG Procedures for Reviewing State False Claims Acts As noted above, the effective date of section 1909 of the Act is January 1, 2007. A State that, as of January 1, 2007, has a law in effect that meets the enumerated requirements shall be deemed in compliance with such requirements for so long as the law continues to meet such requirements. With the publication of these guidelines, OIG will accept requests for review of State laws to determine if they meet the requirements of section 1909(b) of the Act. In order to request OIG review of a State law, the State Attorney General's office should submit a complete copy of the State law, or any other relevant information, to the following address: Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Cohen Building, Mail Stop 5527, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attention: Roderick Chen, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General. Submissions by telecopier, facsimile, or other electronic media will not be accepted. OIG will review the State law under these guidelines and in consultation with DOJ, and inform the State Attorney General's office in writing whether the State law meets the requirements of section 1909(b) of the Act. Dated: August 16, 2006. Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General. [FR Doc. E6-13749 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-04-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Chittenango Ovate Amber Snail AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of document availability: final revised recovery plan. SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce availability of a final revised recovery plan for the endangered Chittenango ovate amber snail ( *Novisuccinea chittenangoensis* ). The final plan incorporates comments received during the public and peer review period and updates the objectives, criteria, and actions for recovering this endangered species. ADDRESSES: A copy of the revised plan may be requested by contacting the Fish and Wildlife Service's New York Field Office (NYFO), 3817 Luker Road, Cortland, New York 13045. Copies will also be available for downloading from the NYFO's Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/recoveryplans.htm* , and from the Service's Endangered Species Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/index.html.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Robyn Niver, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the above address or by telephone at 607-753-9334. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare recovery plans for most of the Federally listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species no longer needs the protection of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) (Act), and provide estimates of the time and cost for implementing the needed recovery measures. The Act requires recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. A final rule listing the Chittenango ovate amber snail *(Novisuccinea chittenangoensis)* as threatened was published in the **Federal Register** on July 3, 1978 (43 FR 28932), and became effective on August 2, 1978. The initial recovery plan for the species was completed in March 1983 (Riexinger, P., J. Proud, T. Lyons, and D. Sulitka. 1983. Chittenango ovate amber snail recovery plan. Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, in cooperation with the Chittenango Ovate Amber Recovery Team. March 24, 1983). A draft recovery plan revision was prepared and issued for the species in 2003. Issuance of the draft revised plan included a notice of availability and opportunity for public comment (68 FR 68102, December 5, 2003) and other public notification efforts. Pertinent information received by the Service during the public comment period has been considered in preparation of the final revised recovery plan and is summarized in an appendix to the plan. This information will also be taken into account in the course of implementing recovery actions. In addition, new information on population status and genetics that has become available since publication of the draft in 2003 has informed the final plan with a better understanding of the snail's distribution within its sole population, and has alleviated concerns about possible hybridization between *Novisuccinea chittenangoensis* and an introduced snail occupying the same habitat. The new information has resulted in only a slight shift in the recovery strategy for this species, which continues to be highly imperiled. Since its discovery in 1905, only one extant *N. chittenangoensis* colony has been verified, from a site within the Chittenango Falls State Park in Madison County, New York. The Chittenango ovate amber snail is a terrestrial species that requires the cool, mild-temperature, moist conditions provided by the waterfalls and mist in its environment. Its habitat lies within a ravine at the base of a 167-foot waterfall, and the ledges where it is found comprise an early successional sere that is periodically rejuvenated to a bare substrate by floodwaters. The species requires a substrate rich in calcium carbonate and appears to prefer green vegetation such as the various mosses, liverworts, and other low herbaceous vegetation found within the spray zone adjacent to the falls. Clean water may be necessary to maintain essential habitat, although water quality may have only an indirect effect on the snail. The Chittenango ovate amber snail was listed due to its rarity and population decline. Since listing, habitat protection and captive propagation measures have been implemented. Unfortunately, the captive propagation efforts to date have been unsuccessful, and the species' status remains exceedingly precarious. The primary continuing threats to the snail are its small population size and limited distribution as well as an undefined negative interaction with an introduced snail, *Succinea* sp. B. Additionally, potential threats persist from habitat changes and inadvertent human disturbance. The final revised recovery plan includes updated scientific information about the Chittenango ovate amber snail and identifies research and management actions needed to conserve and recover species within its ecosystem. The recovery goal for the snail is to achieve long-term viability of the species in the wild, thereby allowing it to be taken off the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The initial recovery objective is to stabilize the extant population at Chittenango Falls. Two necessary conditions for stabilization are maintaining (or increasing) the baseline population size of the natural colony and maintaining multiple captive populations of N. *chittenangoensis* . Achievement of the first condition will entail habitat management planning and research into the species' biological requirements and possible means of controlling the competing *Succinea* sp. B. In addition to securing the in situ conditions necessary to stabilize the natural population, captive propagation should be reinitiated in accordance with a newly established propagation protocol to safeguard against extinction of this species. If and when stabilization of the extant N. *chittenangoensis* population at Chittenango Falls has been achieved, progress toward full recovery of the species can commence. This will include augmentation of the population at the Falls, searching for other possible extant populations, long-term maintenance of captive populations, and investigating the feasibility of initiating a population of N. *chittenangoensis* at an alternative location. The plan includes criteria for determining when the objectives of stabilization and full recovery have been met. *Author:* Mary Parkin, Recovery Coordinator, Endangered Species Program, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5. Authority: The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). Dated: July 27, 2006. Michael G. Thabault, Acting Regional Director, Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-13717 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree under the Clean Water Act Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on August 15, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in *United States and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet* v. *Mid-Valley Pipeline Company, Sunoco Pipeline L.P., and Sun Pipe Line Company* , Civil Action No. 06-57-KKC, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. In this action, the United States alleged Clean Water Act (“CWA”) violations arising from two spills of crude oil from the Mid-Valley Pipeline (MVPL). In the Complaint, the United States asserts CWA claims for penalties and injunctive relief, and the Kentucky Cabinet asserts claims for penalties and costs under Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 224 and related Kentucky Administrative Regulations, against MVPL owner Mid-Valley Pipeline Company (“Mid-Valley”) and MVPL operator Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“SPLP”), for the spill of 6,251 barrels of crude oil on January 26, 2005, in Owen County, Kentucky, into the Kentucky and Ohio Rivers. In addition, the United States asserts a CWA claim against Mid-Valley and then-operator Sun Pipe Line Company (“Sun”) for the spill of 1,500 barrels of crude oil on November 24, 2000, in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana, into Campit Lake. With respect to the Kentucky spill, the Decree provides for Mid-Valley and SPLP to pay a $2.57 million civil penalty ($1.4 million to the Unite States, and $1.17 million to the Cabinet), pay for a state environmental project at a cost of $230,000, perform injunctive relief related to enhancement of spill response preparation, and reimburse the Kentucky Cabinet for certain billed response costs. With respect to the November 2000 Louisiana discharge of 1,500 barrels, Mid-Valley and operator Sun are to pay a federal civil penalty of $300,000. The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty

(30)days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to *United States and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet* v. *Mid-Valley Pipeline Company. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., and Sun Pipe Line Company* , D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-07957. The Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Kentucky, 110 West Vine Street, Suite 400, Lexington, KY 40507-1671; at U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960; and at U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. During the public comment period, the Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site, *http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.* A copy of the Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood ( *tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov* ), fax no.

(202)514-0097, phone confirmation number

(202)514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $8.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury. Henry S. Friedman, Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 06-7028 Filed 8-18-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

U.S. Code