Unknown. Final rule
20,999 words·~95 min read·
/register/2006/09/07/06-7491A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-09-07.xml --- 71 173 Thursday, September 7, 2006 Contents Agency Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, 52797 06-7478 Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Spearmint oil produced in Far West, 52735-52738 E6-14760 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Commodity Credit Corporation See Forest Service See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52759-52760 E6-14818 E6-14819 Air Force Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings:
Air University Board of Visitors, 52776 E6-14810 E6-14811 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000: Special Exposure Cohort; employee class designations— Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA, 52798 06-7485 Bethlehem Steel Corp., Buffalo, NY, 52797 06-7484 Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, TN, 52798 06-7486 Meetings: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health— Radiation and Worker Health Advisory Board, 52798-52799 E6-14787 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge operations:
Connecticut, 52743-52744 E6-14834 NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Ports and terminals; holding valid certificates of adequacy, 52811 E6-14837 Commerce Commerce Department See Economic Development Administration See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commodity Commodity Credit Corporation RULES Loan and purchase programs: Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program; tropical regions, 52738-52740 E6-14736 Consumer Consumer Product Safety Commission PROPOSED RULES Consumer Product Safety Act and Federal Hazardous Substances Act:
Adult all terrain vehicle requirements and three-wheeled all terrain vehicle ban Correction, 52758 E6-14757 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52775-52776 E6-14763 Defense Defense Department See Air Force Department See Navy Department Economic Economic Development Administration NOTICES Adjustment assistance; applications, determinations, etc.: GasTech Engineering Inc. et al., 52764 E6-14815 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals; correction, 52776 E6-14801 Postsecondary education:
Federal Family Education Loan Program— Interest rates, 52776-52778 E6-14799 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program— Interest rates, 52778-52783 E6-14800 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Electricity export and import authorizations, permits, etc.: Evergreen Wind Power, LLC, 52784-52785 E6-14803 Sempra Energy Solutions, 52785 E6-14804 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Western Systems Power Pool, 52783-52784 E6-14798 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52791-52792 E6-14813 Executive Executive Office of the President See Presidential Documents FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class D and E airspace, 52740-52741 E6-14821 Class E airspace, 52741 E6-14830 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness standards:
Special conditions— Airbus Model A380-800 airplanes, 52755-52757 E6-14827 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA, Inc., 52845-52846 06-7489 06-7490 RTCA Program Management Committee, 52844-52845 06-7488 FCC Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio services, special: Private land mobile radio services— 5.9 GHz band; dedicated short-range communications services, 52747-52750 E6-14795 800 MHz band; public safety interference proceeding, 52750-52751 E6-14788 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52792-52796 E6-14785 E6-14791 E6-14807 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 52796 06-7528 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52811-52814 E6-14820 E6-14822 E6-14823 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Golden Pass Pipeline LP, 52786-52788 E6-14769 Hydroelectric applications, 52788-52791 E6-14770 E6-14771 E6-14772 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* North American Electric Reliability Corp., 52785-52786 E6-14768 Tennessee Valley Authority, 52786 E6-14767 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Cuyahoga County, OH, 52846 E6-14814 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Motor carrier safety standards: Drivers’ hours of service; exemption applications— Werner Enterprises, Inc., 52846-52848 E6-14797 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 52796 E6-14777 Permissible nonbanking activities, 52796 E6-14776 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes converted to High-Occupancy/Toll lanes; classification as fixed guideway miles for funding formulas; policy statement, 52849-52851 E6-14796 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument; establishment Correction, 52874 C6-7235 NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: Survival enhancement permits— Pygmy rabbit; Columbia Basin distinct population segment; safe harbor agreement, 52816-52818 E6-14773 Endangered and threatened species permit applications, determinations, etc., 52816 E6-14765 Marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 52818 E6-14764 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Commercially distributed analyte specific reagents; frequently asked questions, 52799-52800 06-7500 In vitro diagnostic multivariate index assays, 52800-52801 06-7499 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Committees— Plumas County, 52760 06-7482 GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Agency designation actions: Various states, 52760-52764 E6-14816 E6-14817 Health Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Federal Emergency Management Agency Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52814-52815 E6-14754 E6-14755 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Export administration regulations:
Commerce Control List— Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary Agreement implementation; Categories 1-9 revisions; reporting requirements, definitions, and new or expanded export controls, 52956-52979 06-7385 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 52815 06-7483 IRS Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Income taxes: Qualified business unit branches; transfers using profit and loss method of accounting, currency gain or loss calculation, 52876-52918 06-7250 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping:
Honey from— China, 52764-52766 E6-14846 Structural steel beams from— Korea, 52766-52770 E6-14848 Countervailing duties: Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from— France, 52770-52774 E6-14847 Pasta from— Turkey, 52774-52775 E6-14844 Justice Justice Department NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 52821-52822 E6-14828 Labor Labor Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52822-52823 E6-14833 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.:
Roan Plateau, CO; resource management plan, 52818-52820 E6-14695 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: NASA Advisory Council, 52823-52824 E6-14841 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration RULES Records management: Systematic declassification review of foreign government information; general guidelines, 52743 E6-14761 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Motor vehicle safety standards; exemption petitions, etc.:
Automobili Lamborghini SpA, et al., 52851-52868 06-7487 Saleen, Inc., 52869-52871 E6-14829 NIH National Institutes of Health NOTICES Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, 52802-52806 E6-14753 E6-14831 E6-14832 Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 52806 06-7465 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 52806 06-7463 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 52807 06-7471 06-7472 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 52806-52807 06-7469 National Library of Medicine, 52807-52808 06-7466 06-7467 06-7468 Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, 52808 06-7464 Scientific Review Center, 52809-52810 06-7470 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:
Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Deep-water species, 52754 06-7491 Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument; establishment Correction, 52874 C6-7235 PROPOSED RULES Ocean and coastal resource management: Marine sanctuaries— Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, TX; meetings, 52757-52758 06-7481 Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, MI; meetings, 52758 06-7480 NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 52775 E6-14786 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Valley Forge National Historic Park, PA; white-tailed deer management plan, 52820-52821 E6-14783 Navy Navy Department RULES Navigation, COLREGS compliance exemptions: USS NEW ORLEANS, 52741-52743 E6-14693 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; availability: Energy Northwest, 52824-52826 E6-14774 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52826 06-7504 Regulatory guides; issuance, availability, and withdrawal, 52826-52827 E6-14865 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline safety:
Waiver petitions— TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., 52871-52873 E6-14826 Presidential Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Terrorist attacks; continuation of national emergency with respect to certain (Notice of September 5, 2006), 52733 06-7527 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Securities Exchange Act: Exemption for qualified contingent trades from rule 611(a) of regulation NMS, 52829-52831 E6-14806 NYSE Arca, Inc. and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., regulatory responsibilities allocation plan., 52827-52829 E6-14784 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
American Stock Exchange LLC, 52831-52833 E6-14794 Boston Stock Exchange, Inc., 52833-52835 E6-14792 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 52835-52836 E6-14805 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 52836-52841 E6-14808 Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc., 52842-52843 E6-14793 SBA Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster loan areas: New Mexico, 52843-52844 E6-14778 Pennsylvania, 52844 E6-14780 Meetings: Regulatory Fairness Boards— Region VIII; hearing, 52844 E6-14779 State State Justice Institute NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts, guidelines, 52920-52954 06-7398 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 52810-52811 E6-14812 Meetings: Substance Abuse Treatment Center National Advisory Council, 52811 E6-14809 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration See Federal Transit Administration See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration See Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Organization, functions, and authority delegations:
Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, Federal Highway Administrator, Federal Railroad Administrator, et al., 52751-52754 E6-14802 Treasury Treasury Department See Internal Revenue Service Veterans Veterans Affairs Department RULES Adjudication; pensions, compensation, dependency, etc: Nonservice-connected disability; claims based on aggravation, 52744-52747 E6-14835 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 52876-52918 06-7250 Part III State Justice Institute, 52920-52954 06-7398 Part IV Commerce Department, Industry and Security Bureau, 52956-52979 06-7385 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 173 Thursday, September 7, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 985 [Docket No. FV06-985-2 FIR] Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West;
Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 2006-2007 Marketing Year AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule revising the quantity of Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 2006-2007 marketing year. This rule continues in effect the action that increased the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,007,886 pounds to 1,161,260 pounds, and the allotment percentage from 46 percent to 53 percent. The marketing order regulates the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West and is administered locally by the Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee (Committee). The Committee recommended this rule for the purpose of avoiding extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices to help maintain stability in the Far West spearmint oil market. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan M. Hiller, Marketing Specialist and Gary D. Olson, Regional Manager, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone:
(503)326-2724, Fax:
(503)326-7440, or E-mail: *Susan.Hiller@usda.gov* and *GaryD.Olson@usda.gov* , respectively. Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the marketing order now in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This rule continues in effect the action that increased the quantity of Native spearmint oil produced in the Far West that may be purchased from or handled for producers by handlers during the 2006-2007 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2007. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. The original salable quantity and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2006-2007 marketing year were recommended by the Committee at its October 5, 2005, meeting. The Committee recommended salable quantities of 878,205 pounds and 1,007,886 pounds, and allotment percentages of 45 percent and 46 percent, respectively, for Scotch and Native spearmint oil. A proposed rule was published in the **Federal Register** on February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5183). Comments on the proposed rule were solicited from interested persons until March 3, 2006. No comments were received. Subsequently, a final rule establishing the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native spearmint oil for the 2006-2007 marketing year was published in the **Federal Register** on April 5, 2006 (71 FR 16986). This rule continues in effect the action that revised the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 2006-2007 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2007. Pursuant to authority contained in §§ 985.50, 985.51, and 985.52 of the order, the Committee, with seven of the eight members present, met on April 18, 2006, and unanimously recommended that the 2006-2007 Native spearmint oil allotment percentage be increased by 7 percent. Thus, taking into consideration the following discussion on adjustments to the Native spearmint oil salable quantity, the 2006-2007 marketing year salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil is increased to 1,161,260 pounds and 53 percent, respectively. The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the marketing year. The total salable quantity is divided by the total industry allotment base to determine an allotment percentage. Each producer is allotted a share of the salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's individual allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil. The estimated total industry allotment base for Native spearmint oil for the 2006-2007 marketing year was established at 2,191,056 pounds. This figure represents a one percent increase over the revised 2005-2006 total allotment base. This figure is generally revised each year on June 1 due to producer base being lost because of the bona fide effort production provisions of § 985.53(e). The revision is usually minimal. By increasing the salable quantity and allotment percentage, this final rule makes an additional amount of Native spearmint oil available by releasing oil from the reserve pool. When applied to each individual producer, the allotment percentage increase allows each producer with reserve pool oil to take up to an amount equal to their allotment base from their reserve for this class of oil. Before November 1, 2006, a producer may also transfer excess oil to another producer to enable that producer to fill a deficiency in that producer's annual allotment for this class of oil. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendation: Native Spearmint Oil Recommendation
(A)Estimated 2006-2007 Allotment Base—2,191,056 pounds. This is the estimate on which the original 2006-2007 Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage was based.
(B)Original 2006-2007 Allotment Percentage—46 percent. This was unanimously recommended by the Committee on October 5, 2005.
(C)Original 2006-2007 Salable Quantity—1,007,886 pounds. This figure is 46 percent of the estimated 2006-2007 allotment base of 2,191,056 pounds.
(D)Increase in Allotment Percentage—7 percent. The Committee recommended a 7 percent increase at its April 18, 2006, meeting.
(E)2006-2007 Allotment Percentage—53 percent. This figure is derived by adding the increase of 7 percent to the original 2006-2007 allotment percentage of 46 percent.
(F)Calculated Revised 2006-2007 Salable Quantity—1,161,260 pounds. This figure is 53 percent of the estimated 2006-2007 allotment base of 2,191,056 pounds.
(G)Computed Increase in the 2006-2007 Salable Quantity—153,374 pounds. This figure is 7 percent of the estimated 2006-2007 allotment base of 2,191,056 pounds. In making this recommendation, the Committee considered all available information on price, supply, and demand. The Committee also considered reports and other information from handlers and producers in attendance at the meeting and reports given by the Committee manager from handlers and producers who were not in attendance. On average, handlers estimated that the demand for 2006-2007 Native spearmint oil is 300,000 pounds above the quantity already contracted for sale. The 2006-2007 marketing year began on June 1, 2006, with an estimated carry-in of 50,000 pounds of salable oil. When the estimated carry-in is added to the original 2006-2007 salable quantity of 1,007,886 pounds, a total estimated available supply for the 2006-2007 marketing year of 1,057,886 pounds results. Of this amount, 819,560 pounds of oil has already been contracted for the 2006-2007 marketing year. Additionally, an estimated deficiency of 133,800 pounds may exist from producers not producing their full salable quantity. As a result, an estimated 104,526 pounds of oil would remain uncontracted and available for sale without this increase. This increase supplies an additional 153,374 pounds of oil to the market, resulting in 257,900 pounds of oil available for contracting for 2006-2007 marketing year. The Committee was reluctant to recommend any more of an increase in the salable quantity due to the uncertainty of the 2006-2007 marketing year; however, the Committee continues to believe that an increase is necessary to supply the higher quantity of Native spearmint oil demanded according to their revised market estimate. Therefore, the industry may not be able to meet market demand without this increase. In addition, when the Committee made its original recommendation for the establishment of the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for the 2006-2007 marketing year, it had anticipated that the year would end with an ample available supply. Based on its analysis of available information, USDA has determined that the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil for the 2006-2007 marketing year should be increased to 1,161,260 pounds and 53 percent, respectively. This rule finalizes an interim final rule that relaxed the regulation of Native spearmint oil and will allow producers to meet market demand while improving producer returns. In conjunction with the issuance of this rule, the Committee's revised marketing policy statement for the 2006-2007 marketing year has been reviewed by USDA. The Committee's marketing policy statement, a requirement whenever the Committee recommends implementing volume regulations or recommends revisions to existing volume regulations, meets the intent of § 985.50 of the order. During its discussion of revising the 2006-2007 salable quantity and allotment percentage, the Committee considered:
(1)The estimated quantity of salable oil of each class held by producers and handlers;
(2)the estimated demand for each class of oil;
(3)prospective production of each class of oil;
(4)total of allotment bases of each class of oil for the current marketing year and the estimated total of allotment bases of each class for the ensuing marketing year;
(5)the quantity of reserve oil, by class, in storage;
(6)producer prices of oil, including prices for each class of oil; and
(7)general market conditions for each class of oil, including whether the estimated season average price to producers is likely to exceed parity. Conformity with USDA's “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” has also been reviewed and confirmed. The increase in the Native spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage allows for anticipated market needs for this class of oil. In determining anticipated market needs, consideration by the Committee was given to historical sales, and changes and trends in production and demand. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. There are eight spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order, and approximately 59 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 88 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000. Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that 2 of the 8 handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the international trading of essential oils and the products of essential oils. In addition, the Committee estimates that 19 of the 59 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 18 of the 88 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, a majority of handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities. The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. A typical spearmint oil-producing operation has enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop is about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. Thus, the typical spearmint oil producer has to have considerably more acreage than is planted to spearmint during any given season. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint for weed, insect, and disease control. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, most spearmint oil-producing farms fall into the SBA category of large businesses. Small spearmint oil producers generally are not as extensively diversified as larger ones and as such are more at risk to market fluctuations. Such small producers generally need to market their entire annual crop and do not have the luxury of having other crops to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns. Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because income from alternate crops could support the operation for a period of time. Being reasonably assured of a stable price and market provides small producing entities with the ability to maintain proper cash flow and to meet annual expenses. Thus, the market and price stability provided by the order potentially benefit the small producer more than such provisions benefit large producers. Even though a majority of handlers and producers of spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities, the volume control feature of this order has small entity orientation. This rule continues in effect the action that revised the quantity of Native spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 2006-2007 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 2007. That interim final rule increased the Native spearmint oil salable quantity from 1,007,886 pounds to 1,161,260 pounds, and the allotment percentage from 46 percent to 53 percent. An econometric model was used to assess the impact that volume control has on the prices producers receive for their commodity. Without volume control, spearmint oil markets would likely be over-supplied, resulting in low producer prices and a large volume of oil stored and carried over to the next crop year. The model estimates how much lower producer prices would likely be in the absence of volume controls. The recommended allotment percentages, upon which 2006-2007 producer allotments are based, are 45 percent for Scotch and 53 percent for Native (a 7 percentage point increase from the original salable percentage of 46 percent). Without volume controls, producers would not be limited to these allotment levels, and could produce and sell additional spearmint oil. The econometric model estimated a $1.40 decline in the season average producer price per pound (from both classes of spearmint oil) resulting from the higher quantities that would be produced and marketed if volume controls were not used (i.e., if the salable percentages were set at 100 percent). Loosening the volume control restriction by increasing the allotment percentages resulted in this revised price decline estimate of $1.40 per pound if volume controls were not used. A previous price decline estimate of $1.49 per pound was based on the 2006-2007 allotment percentages (45 percent for Scotch and 46 percent for Native) published in the **Federal Register** on April 5, 2006 (71 FR 16986). The surplus situation for the spearmint oil market that would exist without volume controls in 2006-2007 also would likely dampen prospects for improved producer prices in future years because of the buildup in stocks. The use of volume controls allows the industry to fully supply spearmint oil markets while avoiding the negative consequences of over-supplying these markets. The use of volume controls is believed to have little or no effect on consumer prices of products containing spearmint oil and will not result in fewer retail sales of such products. Based on projections available at the meeting, the Committee considered alternatives to the increase finalized herein. The Committee not only considered leaving the salable quantity and allotment percentage unchanged, but also looked at various increases ranging from 0 percent to 10 percent. The Committee reached its recommendation to increase the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil after careful consideration of all available information, and believes that the level recommended will achieve the objectives sought. Without the increase, the Committee believes the industry would not be able to meet market needs. The AMS is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the April 18, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the **Federal Register** on May 26, 2006. Copies of the rule were mailed by the Committee's staff to all committee members, producers, handlers, and other interested persons. In addition, the rule was made available through the Internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. That rule provided for a 60-day comment period which ended July 25, 2006. No comments were received. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.* Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 30266, May 26, 2006) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985 Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spearmint oil. PART 985—MARKETING ORDER REGULATING THE HANDLING OF SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE FAR WEST Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 985, which was published at 71 FR 30266 on May 26, 2006, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: August 31, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-14760 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR Part 1437 RIN 0560 AH19 Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program—Tropical Regions AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule changes how the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)handles certain claims under the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
(NAP)for “tropical” regions, including Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other specified areas. The changes will reduce the burden on the affected program participants and ease program administration in the affected areas. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Williams, Program Specialist, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program, Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), STOP 0517, Room 3648-S, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0517. Telephone: 202-690-0700. Electronic Mail: *Frances.Williams@wdc.usda.gov.* Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, *etc* .) should contact the USDA Target Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background A proposed rule published on October 3, 2005 proposed changes for handling certain but not all claims for assistance in certain defined “tropical regions” (including Hawaii and Puerto Rico) under the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
(NAP)program administered by CCC under rules found at 7 CFR Part 1437. The comment period for the rule ended on November 2, 2005, and no comments were received. The background and need for the rule were described in the preamble to the proposed rule. The new regulations, as proposed, are adopted by final rule with minor clarifying changes. This final rule is made effective as of January 1, 2006, since, as contemplated in the proposed rule, the rule was to be effective with all covered crops planted as of that date. Provision is made in the rule itself for adjustments as may be needed between the old and new rules. It is understood, however, that the changes in 7 CFR 1437 are, in all cases, advantageous to producers. If not, any producer with a claim arising from a policy issued before the date of publication of this final rule who would have profited from the old policy may apply for relief. In the preamble to the proposed rule it was indicated that the source of authority for extending the rule to certain tropical regions was 48 U.S.C. 1469d. However, the NAP program has been since inception extended to those regions. NAP was first provided for in crop insurance legislation that allowed for crop insurance in such regions and allowed NAP as an alternative to catastrophic crop insurance coverage where such coverage is not available. It remains the case, even though the statutory authority for NAP has changed, that NAP is to be available where conventional federal crop insurance catastrophic insurance is not available and the authority for federal crop insurance continues to include an allowance for federal crop insurance in the areas covered by this NAP rule. That noted, on review, the provisions of the rule which provide for different treatment in certain tropical areas as opposed to others have been found to be justified because of differing agricultural conditions and no change has been made in the rule in this regard. Executive Order 12866 This rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866, was determined to be not significant, and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Regulatory Flexibility Act It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because CCC is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for the subject matter of this rule. Environmental Assessment The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* , the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA, 7 CFR 799. FSA has concluded that this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental review and documentation. No extraordinary circumstances or other unforeseeable factors exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Executive Order 12988 This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This rule preempts State and other local laws that are inconsistent with it. Before any legal action may be brought regarding a determination under this rule, the administrative appeal provisions set forth at 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted. Executive Order 12372 This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. “States” for this purpose included the 50 States and other areas addressed in the rule. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3014, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)for State, Local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 The information collection burden for NAP is by OMB under 5 CFR 1320 and assigned OMB Control Number 0560-0175. In the proposed rule (70 FR 57520, 57521) the Agency provided an estimate of the effect this rule would have on the information collection requirements of the NAP program and requested public comment on whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected, and ways to minimize the burden. No comments were received. Executive Order 12612 This rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. “States” for this purpose included the 50 States and other areas addressed in the rule. Government Paperwork Elimination Act FSA is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
(GPEA)and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government agencies in general and FSA in particular to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. The forms and other information collection activities required for participation in the program are available electronically for downloading or electronic submission through the USDA eForms Web site at *http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/eforms.* Federal Assistance Programs The title and number of the Federal assistance program found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this final rule applies are Noninsured Assistance, 10-451. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1437 Agricultural commodities, Disaster assistance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1437 is amended as follows: PART 1437—NONINSURED CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 1437 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7333; 15 U.S.C. 714 *et seq.* ; and 48 U.S.C. 1469. 2. Add Subpart F to read as follows: Subpart F—Coverage in the Tropical Region Sec. 1437.501 Applicability; definition of “tropical region” and additional definitions 1437.502 Coverage periods and fees for covered tropical crops. 1437.503 Covered losses and recordkeeping requirements for covered tropical crops. 1437.504 Notice of loss for covered tropical crops. 1437.505 Application for payment for the tropical region. Subpart F—Determining Coverage in the Tropical Region § 1437.501 Applicability; definition of “tropical region” and additional definitions.
(a)This subpart shall only apply to covered tropical crops in the tropical region for the 2006 and subsequent crops years, as those terms are defined in this subpart. Benefits under this part may be extended to those crops only to the extent that they are otherwise eligible for assistance under this part. Covered crops shall not apply to “value loss” crops, as defined elsewhere in this part. For those crops that are covered by this subpart, loss and payment determinations for the program covered in this part shall be determined by the rules that otherwise apply to the program subject to the modifications provided by this subpart. The rules that otherwise apply include, but are not limited to, limitations on payments that appear elsewhere in this part.
(b)For purposes of this subpart:
(1)*Tropical region* includes, as may be further limited by the Deputy Administrator: Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau).
(2)*2006 and subsequent crops* means those crops in the ground on or after January 1, 2006.
(3)*Covered tropical crops* means those crops and commodities in the tropical region governed by this subpart, those being all crops and commodities in the tropical region that are otherwise eligible for generating a benefit claim under this part, except for value-loss crops as defined elsewhere in this part.
(c)The Deputy Administrator may adjust requirements for assistance so as to provide a fair transition from previous rules for crop covered by this subpart to those provisions which are provided for in this subpart. § 1437.502 Coverage periods and fees for covered tropical crops.
(a)The crop year for all covered tropical crops is the calendar year (January 1 through December 31 beginning in 2006 through subsequent years).
(b)The application closing date for all covered tropical crops is December 1 of the calendar year before the applicable crop year.
(c)For covered tropical crops, per county per crop year, a maximum service fee of $100.00 is required of the producer for coverage of:
(1)With respect to annual and biennial crops, all plantings of the same crop planted during the crop year, as determined by CCC.
(2)With respect to perennial crops, all acreage of the crop existing during the crop year, as determined by CCC. (d)(1) Multiple planting periods and final planting dates are not applicable for covered tropical crops. However, nothing in this section shall prohibit assigning different production expectations to different fields.
(2)The coverage period for perennial and other crops covered by this subpart begins on January 1 of the relevant crop year and ends on December 31 of that year. § 1437.503 Covered losses and recordkeeping requirements for covered tropical crops.
(a)Prevented planting coverage is not available for covered tropical crops, other than in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, except as approved by the Deputy Administrator in special cases.
(b)Except in Hawaii and Puerto Rico, or as otherwise approved by the Deputy Administrator in individual cases, eligible causes of loss for covered tropical crops will only include hurricanes, typhoons, and named tropical storms.
(c)Producers who have applied for coverage on covered tropical crops must maintain for the full coverage period contemporaneous records. Contemporaneous records are those created at the time of planting and harvesting of the crop for which the application for coverage is filed. In this regard:
(1)Producers may be selected on a random or targeted basis for compliance review with this requirement and any other requirements that may apply to this program.
(2)A failure to maintain acceptable contemporaneous records throughout the crop year may be treated by CCC as grounds of ineligibility for benefits under this part. § 1437.504 Notice of loss for covered tropical crops.
(a)The provisions of § 1437.10(c) regarding late filed notice of loss do not apply to covered tropical crops.
(b)Where a notice of loss for covered tropical crops is provided according to § 1437.10, producers must provide records maintained according to § 1437.503(c) of the:
(1)Number of acres or other basis of measurement, as applicable, of the crop from which production could be achieved existing on the day the eligible natural disaster occurred or, for prolonged natural disasters, such as a drought and similar damage where applicable, existing on the day the notice of loss is filed.
(2)Amount, including zero, as applicable, of production harvested, before or after the disaster, from those crop plantings (damaged or undamaged) which were in existence on the farm at the time of the disaster including production from the covered plantings (in existence at the time of the loss event) that may occur after the loss event even when, to the extent provided for in paragraph
(c)of this section, the harvest occurs after the end of the crop year. Crop acreage of the covered crop that is in existence at the time of the loss event that can be harvested after the eligible natural disaster must be harvested, or continue to be harvested, and the harvested acres and production reported to FSA according to this subpart, except that for perennial crops the requirement ends with the end of the crop year. For non-perennial crops the obligation to harvest ends with the end of the life-cycle for the plantings that were in existence at the time of the loss event. In this regard:
(i)Except as otherwise determined by FSA, such production, before or after the loss event, will be taken into account in computing eligibilities.
(ii)Production that must be reported under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section includes, except in the case of perennial plants, all production irrespective of whether the production occurs in the same crop year.
(iii)For perennial plants, only production in the same crop year must be reported.
(iv)All production that must be reported for covered tropical crops will, except as specified by the Deputy Administrator, be taken into account in the loss determinations made under this part. The producer is obligated to maximize that production. That is, harvesting and other production activities for the plants in the ground at the time of the disaster must be undertaken or continue to be undertaken, to the maximum extent possible, for the full reporting period, that being the period for which production could count against a loss as indicated in this subpart.
(3)Failure to keep sufficient records to allow the computations provided for in this subpart is grounds for denial of the claim.
(c)Producers with coverage of a covered tropical crop for a crop year must, by the earlier of 90 calendar days after the crop year ends or the date a notice of loss is filed, file a certified report setting out the:
(1)Collective acres of the crop acreage planted or in the ground during the crop year.
(2)Total production harvested from the crop acreage for the full crop year in the case of a perennial plant and for the full life of the plants for other crops.
(d)With respect to the report required in paragraph
(c)of this section:
(1)If a report is filed before the end of the crop year, an updated crop report must be filed within 90 calendar days from the end of the crop year to supplement the original report;
(2)If the report is for any annual or biennial crops where production continued or could have continued beyond the period covered in the reports otherwise filed under this section, an additional report of production must be filed within 30 days of the end of the last countable production for the covered crop or 30 days after the last date on which such production could have been obtained, whichever is later.
(3)A failure to file an adequate report where a report is required by this section may result in the producer being treated as having a zero yield capability for the crop year involved for purposes of constructing a crop history. Alternatively, the Deputy Administrator may assign another sanction for that failure. In addition to other sanctions as may apply, a failure to file such reports may be grounds for denial of a claim. The Deputy Administrator may adjust crop histories as determined appropriate to create, to the extent practicable, an appropriate crop history for loss computation purposes.
(4)Such reports as are provided for in this subsection must be filed for every crop year for which there is coverage, irrespective of whether a claim is filed for that year.
(e)Unless otherwise specified by the Deputy Administrator, appraisals are not required of crop acreage for covered tropical crops on Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.
(f)All crop acreage for covered tropical crops for which a notice of loss is filed must not be destroyed until authorized by CCC. § 1437.505 Application for payment for the tropical region.
(a)For producers of covered tropical crops in Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, an application for payment must be filed at the same time as the filing of the notice of loss required under §§ 1437.10 and 1437.504.
(b)For producers in Puerto Rico and Hawaii, an application for payment for such crops must be filed by the later of:
(1)The date on which the notice of loss is filed in accordance with §§ 1437.10 and 1437.502(i), and
(2)The date of the completion of harvest for the specific crop acreage that existed at the time of loss for which the notice of loss was filed. Signed in Washington, DC, August 23, 2006. Thomas B. Hofeller, Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-14736 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24813; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-16] Modification of Legal Description of Class D and E Airspace; Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright Army Airfield, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army will soon be changing the name of Fort (Ft.) Wainwright Army Airfield
(AAF)to Ladd AAF. This action amends the airport name accordingly for each of the Class D and Class E airspace descriptions in FAA Order 7400.9N. This action also amends an altitude omission which currently does not exist in the FAA Order 7400.9N. This action also redefines the airspace description to account for recent updates to the airfield coordinates. DATES: This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, November 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number
(907)271-5898; fax:
(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov.* Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the **Federal Register** on Monday, July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40394). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for non-controversial actions where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. The direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on November 23, 2006. One comment was received via telephone, in which the person voiced opposition to the name change. That opinion is not within the scope of this action, in that it does not address any aeronautical effect. His complaint is with the U.S. Army's decision to change the name. This action essentially addresses the title of the airspace annoted in the the FAA Order 7400.8. No other adverse comments were received. This notice confirms that the rule will become effective on that date. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on August 28, 2006. Anthony M. Wylie, Director, Alaska Flight Service Information Office. [FR Doc. E6-14821 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23714; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-07] Revision of Class E Airspace; Barter Island, AK AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; correction. SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the airspace description contained in a Final Rule that was published in the **Federal Register** on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49343). Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-07. DATES: *Effective Date:* 0901 UTC, November 23, 2006 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number
(907)271-5898; fax:
(907)271-2850; e-mail: *gary.ctr.rolf@faa.gov* . Internet address: *http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History Federal Register Document E6-13803, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-07, published on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49343), revised Class E airspace at Barter Island, AK. An error was discovered in the airspace description that incorrectly identified the Barter Island Airport by including the name “Edward Burnell Sr. Memorial”. This action corrects that error. Correction to Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the airspace description of the Class E airspace published in the **Federal Register** , Wednesday, August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49343), (FR Doc E6-13803, page 49344, column 3) is corrected as follows: § 71.1 [Corrected] AAL AK E5 Barter Island, AK [Revised] Barter Island Airport, AK (Lat. 70°08′02″ N., long. 143°34′55″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.7-mile radius of the Barter Island Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 83-mile radius of the Barter Island Airport, excluding that airspace east of 141° West Longitude. Issued in Anchorage, AK, on August 23, 2006. Anthony M. Wylie, Director, Alaska Flight Service Information Office. [FR Doc. E6-14830 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS NEW ORLEANS (LPD 18) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply. DATES: *Effective Date:* August 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Gregg A. Cervi, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR part 706. This amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS NEW ORLEANS (LPD 18) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Rule 27, pertaining to the placement of all-round task lights in a vertical line; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 2(k), pertaining to the vertical separation between anchor lights. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements. Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 2. Table Three of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS NEW ORLEANS: § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Three Vessel No. Masthead lights arc of visibility; rule 21(a) Side lights arc of visibility; rule 21(b) Stern light arc of visibility; rule 21(c) Side lights distance inboard of ship's sides in meters 3(b) annex 1 Stern light, distance forward of stern in meters; rule 21(c) Forward anchor light, height above hull in meters; 2(K) annex 1 Anchor lights relationship of aft light to forward light in meters 2(K) annex 1 * * * * * * * USS NEW ORLEANS LPD 18 2.36m below. * * * * * * * 3. Table Four, in Paragraph 20 of § 706.2, is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS NEW ORLEANS (LPD 18): § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Vessel Number Angle in degrees of task lights off vertical as viewed from directly ahead or astern USS NEW ORLEANS LPD 18 10 * * * * * * * 4. Table Five of § 706.2 is amended by adding, in numerical order, the following entry for USS NEW ORLEANS: § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Five Vessel No. Masthead lights not over all other lights and obstructions. Annex I, sec. 2(f) Forward masthead light not in forward quarter of ship. Annex I, sec. 3(a) After mast-head light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward masthead light. Annex I, sec. 3(a) Percentage horizontal separation attained * * * * * * * USS NEW ORLEANS LPD 18 X 70.7 * * * * * * * Approved: August 18, 2006. Gregg A. Cervi, Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). [FR Doc. E6-14693 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 32 CFR Part 2002 [NARA-06-006] RIN 3095-AB51 General Guidelines for Systematic Declassification Review of Foreign Government Information; Removal of Part AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA)is removing Information Security Oversight Office
(ISOO)regulations on the general guidelines for systematic declassification review of foreign government information. Following the issuance of Executive Order 12958 (Classified National Security Information) on April 17, 1995, and its amendment on March 25, 2003, the General Guidelines for Systematic Declassification Review of Foreign Government Information, became obsolete. The final rule will affect Federal agencies. EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. William Leonard, Director, ISOO, at 202-357-5400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority citation for part 2002 is no longer valid with the revocation of E.O. 12356 following the issuance of E.O. 12958, as amended. Part 2002 prescribed the general guidelines for the systematic declassification review of classified foreign government information that was either received or classified by the United States Government or its agents, and incorporated into records determined by the Archivist of the United States to have permanent value. E.O. 12958, as amended, and its implementing regulation, 32 CFR parts 2001 and 2004 (ISOO Directive No. 1), provide for the declassification of classified foreign government information. As national security classified information, classified foreign government information is subject to automatic declassification after 25 years unless specifically exempted. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), good cause exists for waiving the requirements of notice and opportunity for comment on the withdrawal of 32 CFR part 2002. Following the issuance of Executive Order 12958, as amended, these sections became obsolete. Therefore, because the Information Security Oversight Office
(ISOO)has no authority to retain these sections, the process of notice and comment would be unproductive and is unnecessary. Additionally, it is in the public interest to remove an obsolete regulation. This rule is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been submitted for Office of Management and Budget review under that order. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because this rule applies to Federal agencies. This regulation does not have any federalism implications. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 2002 Archives and records, Declassification. PART 2002—[REMOVED] Under E.O. 12958, as amended, section 3.3(g) and for the reasons set forth in the preamble, NARA amends 32 CFR chapter 20 by removing part 2002. Dated: August 24, 2006. J. William Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight Office. Approved: August 30, 2006. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. [FR Doc. E6-14761 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD01-06-111] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Housatonic River, Stratford, CT AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the U.S. 1 Bridge, across the Housatonic River, mile 3.5, at Stratford, Connecticut. Under this temporary deviation, only one of the two moveable bascule spans will be opened for the passage of vessel traffic. This deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. DATES: This deviation is effective from September 18, 2006 through November 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, One South Street, New York, New York 10004, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at
(212)668-7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 1 Bridge across the Housatonic River, mile 3.5, at Stratford, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 32 feet at mean high water and 37 feet at mean low water. The existing operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.207(a). The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to allow opening only one of the two moveable bascule spans for the passage of vessel traffic from September 18, 2006 through November 16, 2006, in order to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance. Under this temporary deviation, the U.S. 1 Bridge need only open one of the two movable bascule spans for the passage of vessel traffic from September 18, 2006 through November 16, 2006. Two-span, full bridge, openings shall be provided upon request, if at least a three-day advance notice is given, by calling the number posted at the bridge. Otherwise, the bridge will continue to open during this temporary deviation in accordance with the schedule specified in 33 CFR 117.207(a). 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. Should the bridge maintenance authorized by this temporary deviation be completed before the end of the effective period published in this notice, the Coast Guard will rescind the remainder of this temporary deviation, the bridge shall be returned to its normal operating schedule, and notice will be provided to the public. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: August 28, 2006. Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-14834 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 3 RIN 2900-AI42 Claims Based on Aggravation of a Nonservice-Connected Disability AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)is amending its adjudication regulations concerning secondary service connection. This amendment is necessary because of a court decision that clarified the circumstances under which a veteran may be compensated for an increase in the severity of an otherwise nonservice-connected condition which is caused by aggravation from a service-connected condition. The intended effect of this amendment is to conform VA regulations to the court's decision. DATES: *Effective Date:* October 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Russo, Chief, Regulations Staff, Compensation and Pension Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420,
(202)273-7211. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VA published in the **Federal Register** (62 FR 30547) a proposed rule to amend 38 CFR 3.310 by adding a new paragraph to implement a decision of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (now the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims)
(CAVC)in the case of *Allen* v. *Brown* , 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995), that provided for establishing service connection for that amount of increase in an otherwise nonservice-connected condition which was caused by aggravation from a service-connected condition ( *Allen* aggravation). We received comments from the Disabled American Veterans and the Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes indicated below. One commenter expressed the opinion that VA should establish service connection for the entire aggravated injury or disease, but only pay compensation for that part of the condition that is due to aggravation by an already service-connected condition. The commenter opined that 38 U.S.C. 1110 and 1131 do not allow VA to establish service connection for part of a condition. The same commenter stated that it has been the policy of VA to compensate the entire disability where a service-connected condition and a nonservice-connected condition affect a single organ, body system, or function, and the two conditions have common symptoms that cannot be separated. This commenter felt that the policy was an acknowledgment by VA that the symptoms cannot be separated to allow proportioning the disability attributable to each organ, body system, or function. We do not agree with this proposed amendment to the rule. In *Allen* v. *Brown* , 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995), the CAVC held that 38 U.S.C. 1110 requires VA to pay compensation for the aggravation of the nonservice-connected disability but did not, we believe, express a specific view on whether VA would be required or permitted to grant “service connection” for all or only part of the nonservice-connected disease. Section 1110 does not directly speak to awards of “service connection,” but merely authorizes compensation for “disability,” which the CAVC in *Allen* construed to mean “impairment of earning capacity.” Section 1110 further requires that the disability have been caused by an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in service. This is consistent with the proposed rule, which requires that the “disability” (the increased severity of the nonservice-connected condition) must be caused by a service-connected injury or disease. Accordingly, section 1110 does not support the commenter's position. In its holding in *Tobin* v. *Derwinski,* 2 Vet. App. 34 (1991), the CAVC apparently interpreted 38 CFR 3.310 to require VA to grant “service connection” for the portion of the nonservice-connected disability attributable to aggravation by the service-connected condition. Thus, when read in tandem, the CAVC's rulings require VA to service connect the degree of aggravation of a nonservice-connected condition by a service-connected disability and to pay compensation for that level of disability attributable to such aggravation. Although § 3.310 reasonably provides that any disability proximately caused by a service-connected disease will be considered part of the service-connected condition, for purposes of authorizing service connection and compensation, there is no clear basis for awarding service connection for the entire nonservice-connected condition, including aspects of that condition that are not attributable to a service-connected condition. Although 38 U.S.C. 1110 neither uses nor defines the term “service-connected,” that term is defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(16) to mean, in pertinent part, that a “disability was incurred or aggravated * * * in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service.” Nothing in that definition requires or authorizes VA to grant service connection for the entirety of a disease or injury that was not incurred or aggravated in service. Both commenters expressed concerns about the difficulties in establishing the degree of aggravation that is to be compensated. However, VA believes that, if medical evidence is adequately developed, computation of the degree of aggravation should be attainable. The degree of aggravation would be assessed based upon the objective medical evidence of record. Both commenters objected to the proposed rule's requirement of “medical evidence extant before the aggravation sufficient to establish the pre-aggravation severity of the disability.” They suggested that a current medical opinion should be sufficient to establish the fact of aggravation. Aggravation is a comparative term meaning that a disability has worsened from one level of severity to another. In order to establish the degree to which aggravation has occurred, it is necessary to compare the current level of severity to a prior level of severity. In cases of disabilities which pre-existed service, in standard aggravation claims under 38 U.S.C. 1153, the pre-service level of severity is generally established by a service entrance examination. If no disabilities are noted on that examination, the veteran is presumed to have been in sound condition when he or she entered service. If disabilities are noted on the entrance examination, the examiner should include sufficient findings to permit a determination of the degree of disability. If the findings indicate severe disability, the person would not be allowed on active duty. If the findings indicate mild to moderate disability, an assessment of fitness for duty would be made. If the person were allowed on active duty, there should be sufficient findings for a later assessment of the pre-service level of disability, which would be deducted from the post-service level of disability in a standard aggravation claim. It is the Government's responsibility to conduct the entrance examination and to create and maintain a record of that examination. If the Government fails to conduct the examination or fails to provide sufficient findings for assessing the level of pre-service disability, or if the record of the examination is lost or destroyed, that should not operate to the disadvantage of the veteran. That is the reason for the language in 38 CFR 3.322 and 4.22, which requires deduction of the pre-service level of disability from the current level of disability only if the pre-service level of disability is “ascertainable.” The requirement for proof of baseline disability is much different in an *Allen* aggravation case. The threshold requirement for entitlement under § 3.310(a) is evidence demonstrating an increase in disability of a nonservice-connected disability that is proximately due to or the result of service. Thus, evidence of baseline disability is first necessary to establish entitlement to service connection. Plainly stated, such evidence of aggravation would necessarily include some demonstration of baseline disability in order to show an increase in severity. Once entitlement has been established, such evidence would also be necessary for purposes of determining the level of compensation. In so doing, the veteran would demonstrate that the nonservice-connected disability has increased in severity because of aggravation from a service-connected condition. Unlike the standard aggravation claim pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1153 where the baseline level of severity (referred to in the text of the proposed rule as “the pre-aggravation severity”) is based on an entrance examination, there is no Government responsibility to create and maintain medical records on nonservice-connected conditions for purposes of determining the baseline level of severity in *Allen* aggravation claims. The veteran must “support” the claim with medical evidence of the baseline level of severity of a nonservice-connected condition which can then be compared to the current level of severity to establish the fact of aggravation and the degree of disability for which the veteran will be compensated. One commenter stated it would be unreasonable for VA to require proof of a baseline level of disability as a condition for granting service connection for aggravation. To illustrate, the commenter suggested that if a physician opined that a service-connected condition aggravated a nonservice-connected condition, VA would be required to concede aggravation, in the absence of any contrary evidence, even if there were no evidence of a baseline level of pre-aggravation disability. This comment is premised upon the incorrect assumption that there is necessarily a difference under *Allen* between the issue of service connection and the degree of disability. As indicated, the evidence of baseline disability satisfies the initial requirement of additional disability necessary to establish entitlement, but also is necessary to demonstrate the level of disability due to aggravation. Because we cannot service connect the entire nonservice-connected condition, only the degree of disability resulting from aggravation may be service connected. Therefore, evidence concerning the degree of disability is essential to establish service connection in *Allen* aggravation claims and it is reasonable for VA to require claimant's to submit proof of a baseline disability level. Such a requirement is in accordance with VA's authority under 38 U.S.C. 501 to specify the types of proof that are necessary to establish a benefit. Finally, in the example suggested by the commenter, if a physician determines that a service-connected condition has aggravated a nonservice-connected condition, it is reasonable to expect that that medical opinion would be based on evidence of the baseline and the current level of disability of the nonservice-connected condition. Thus, the requirement to provide proof of a baseline level of disability is not as onerous as contemplated and suggested by this commenter. We have, however, reconsidered the requirement of “medical evidence extant before the aggravation” to establish the baseline level of severity when computing the degree of aggravation. It could be difficult for some claimants to identify the date of onset of the aggravation and then to locate medical evidence created before that date to establish the baseline. Thus, limiting the medical evidence for baseline calculation to that which existed prior to the onset of aggravation could likely result in unfavorable decisions in several claims. Obviously, if such records were available, they would establish the lowest baseline level of severity and, hence, the greatest degree of aggravation when compared to the current level of severity. However, since aggravation is generally an ongoing process, medical evidence establishing the aggravation could be created at any time between the onset of aggravation and the date of the current claim. VA's acceptance of medical evidence created at any time between the onset of aggravation and the date of the current claim for purposes of establishing the baseline level of severity would be more favorable to claimants, although claims granted in this regard would likely result in findings of smaller degrees of aggravation and less compensation. We are, therefore, amending the proposed rule to allow the acceptance, for baseline purposes, of medical evidence created at any time between the onset of aggravation and the receipt of medical evidence establishing the current level of severity. The earlier medical evidence will establish the baseline level of severity for comparison with the current level of severity to determine the degree of aggravation that may be service-connected and compensated. For example, if the onset of aggravation was sometime in 1996, but the veteran can only produce medical evidence from 1999, the 1999 medical evidence would be accepted for purposes of establishing the baseline level of severity. The rule will also state that VA will also accept, for baseline purposes, medical evidence created before the onset of aggravation. One commenter suggested that the provisions of 38 CFR 3.322 with regard to in-service aggravation of pre-service disabilities should have equal application in *Allen* aggravation claims. Specifically, § 3.322 provides that no deduction for the pre-service level of disability may be made unless that pre-service level is “ascertainable.” It also provides that no deduction is to be made if the aggravated disability becomes totally disabling. We do not agree with this suggestion. As mentioned earlier, when a pre-service level of disability is not ascertainable, the Government has failed to discharge its responsibility to conduct, and/or maintain a record of, an adequate entrance examination. That failure should not be allowed to disadvantage the veteran in any way. In *Allen* aggravation claims the Government has no such responsibility. The responsibility for establishing a baseline level of disability in such claims rests with the veteran. If no baseline can be established, no aggravation can be demonstrated, and the deduction issue would be moot. With respect to the provision concerning no deduction when the aggravated disability is totally disabling, we believe such action is prohibited by the *Allen* decision itself. There the Court stated with parenthetical emphasis that “such veteran shall be compensated for the degree of disability (but only that degree) over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation.” Based on that language it is clear that only the incremental increase in disability is to be compensated. To hold otherwise could lead to absurd results. For example, if, 20 years after service, a Vietnam veteran developed a nonservice-connected psychosis which was 70 percent disabling but also had a service-connected disability that aggravated the psychosis causing it to be totally disabling, then the application of 38 CFR 3.322 would require payment of compensation at the 100 percent rate for a 70 percent nonservice-connected condition, when the aggravated percentage is 30 percent. Such a result could not have been intended by the *Allen* court, and we decline to apply § 3.322 to *Allen* aggravation claims in the manner suggested. Both commenters suggested that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for VA to determine, for deduction purposes, the degree of increase in a nonservice-connected condition that is attributable to “the normal progression of the disability” and that perhaps that provision in the proposed rule should just be deleted on the basis of workload considerations. While we agree that it could be difficult to establish the degree of increased disability due to “normal progression,” that does not relieve VA of the responsibility to consider such evidence if it exists. In *Allen* aggravation claims VA can only pay compensation for the increased disability attributable to aggravation from a service-connected condition. Any increase attributable to other causes is beyond the scope of *Allen* and may not be compensated unless specifically authorized by statute. While authoritative medical evidence on the degree of increase due to “normal progression” of a disease is rare, if it exists in an individual case, VA cannot ignore it and cannot adopt the suggestion to delete this provision in the proposed rule. However, in analyzing and responding to the above suggestion, we noted that the proposed rule uses language different from that found in 38 U.S.C. 1153 and 38 CFR 3.306. The proposed rule uses the phrase “normal progression of the disability” whereas the cited statute and regulation dealing with aggravation use the phrase “natural progress of the disease.” Although the choice of words in the proposed rule is slightly different from the statutory phrasing, no change in meaning was intended. For purposes of clarity, however, we will incorporate the statutory phrasing in the first and last sentences of 3.310(b). The proposed rule also uses the term “disability” to mean “disease or injury”, in four other instances. The term “disability” is used in 38 U.S.C. 1153 and 38 CFR 3.306 to mean the level of disability, rather than the disease or injury itself. To avoid any possible confusion about our intent (to refer to the disease or injury), we believe it will provide greater clarity to use the term “disease or injury” instead of disability in 3.310(b). We are also changing “rather than” to “and not due to” to provide a more parallel structure for the first sentence of 3.310(b). One commenter urged VA to include in this regulation some directions to field personnel on how to evaluate the “natural progress” of a disease including the effects of such variables as race, age, gender and geographic location on such “progress.” The commenter also opined that VA was incapable of providing adequate directions on this subject. We do not believe that special instructions for evaluating “natural progress” are necessary. Any evidence of “natural progress” of a disease would be in the form of medical evidence. Since our field personnel are already charged with assessing the credibility and weight of such evidence with regard to other issues in a claim, it would not be appropriate to have a separate set of instructions for assessing the credibility and weight of medical evidence relating to “natural progress” of a disease. The variables mentioned by the commenter would be considered by the medical professional who was providing the evidence of “natural progress.” Therefore, no changes in the proposed rule are warranted based on this comment. One commenter noted that VA has taken a pro-veteran approach to allowing a veteran to claim the aggregate disability caused by a service-connected and nonservice-connected condition, demonstrated by § 4.127, which provides that a veteran with a mental retardation or a personality disorder may also have a mental disorder that may be service-connected. Section 4.127 states that a veteran may have co-existing mental disorders, one service-connectable and the other congenital or developmental, and that the service-connectable disorder should not be overlooked because of the congenital or developmental disorder. Nothing in § 4.127 provides for granting service connection for the co-existing mental retardation or personality disorder. While VA will compensate overlapping symptoms as if the overlapping symptoms were all due to the effects of the service-connected condition, we do this in specific situations where it is impossible for a medical examiner to distinguish which symptoms are due to the service-connected disability and which are due to the nonservice-connected disability, such as where two separate disabilities share common symptoms. Where various symptoms affecting a single body part or system can be separated into those attributable to the service-connected disability and those attributable to the nonservice-connected disability, VA evaluates for compensation only those symptoms attributable to the service-connected disability. While VA agrees that the provision referred to by the commenter is pro-veteran, it does not stand for the proposition that VA grants service connection for conditions not related to military service. No changes are warranted based on this comment. One commenter also referenced the principle codified in 38 U.S.C. 1160 and 38 CFR 3.383, which provide for special consideration when a specified degree of disability is service-connected in certain organs or extremities and there is a nonservice-connected disability affecting the corresponding paired organ or extremity. In this situation, VA is authorized to pay disability compensation as if the combination of disabilities in those paired organs or extremities were service-connected. The commenter expressed the opinion that this demonstrates that VA will grant service connection for a nonservice-connected disability. Section 3.383 does not authorize a grant of service connection for the disability affecting the nonservice-connected paired organ or extremity. Rather, the disability of the nonservice-connected paired organ or extremity remains nonservice-connected but is compensated as if it was service-connected. Further, section 3.383 merely reiterates statutory provisions in 38 U.S.C. 1160 and in no way suggests that VA has general authority to grant service connection for nonservice-connected conditions. Thus, this comment is not directly relevant to the subject of the proposed rule. We make no changes based on this comment. One commenter opined that the determinations of the level of disability must be made by medical personnel and not Rating Veterans Service Representatives. This commenter urged VA to include in the Adjudication Manual a provision stating this. We make no changes based on this suggestion. While the Adjudication Manual may need to be amended to reflect the procedures necessary to implement this regulatory change, the suggestion itself is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Based on our review of the proposed amendment, we are making a minor change in wording. In the first sentence of new paragraph (b), we are changing “shall” to “will” to reflect VA's current efforts to write regulations in plain language. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this final rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 because it materially alters the rights of entitlement recipients based upon a court decision. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The reason for this certification is that these amendments would not directly affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries and their survivors could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), these amendments are exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers are 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability, and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam. Approved: May 26, 2006. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on September 1, 2006. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA is amending 38 CFR part 3 as set forth below: PART 3—ADJUDICATION Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A, continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 3.310 is amended by revising the section heading; by redesignating paragraph
(b)as paragraph (c); and by adding a new paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 3.310 Disabilities that are proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury.
(b)*Aggravation of nonservice-connected disabilities.* Any increase in severity of a nonservice-connected disease or injury that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury, and not due to the natural progress of the nonservice-connected disease, will be service connected. However, VA will not concede that a nonservice-connected disease or injury was aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury unless the baseline level of severity of the nonservice-connected disease or injury is established by medical evidence created before the onset of aggravation or by the earliest medical evidence created at any time between the onset of aggravation and the receipt of medical evidence establishing the current level of severity of the nonservice-connected disease or injury. The rating activity will determine the baseline and current levels of severity under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (38 CFR part 4) and determine the extent of aggravation by deducting the baseline level of severity, as well as any increase in severity due to the natural progress of the disease, from the current level. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1110 and 1131) [FR Doc. E6-14835 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 90 and 95 [WT Docket 01-90; ET Docket 98-95; RM-9096; FCC 06-110] Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Dedicated Short-Range Communications Services in the 5.850-5.925 GHz (5.9 GHz Band) AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document the Commission takes certain actions in response to four petitions for reconsideration filed by 3M Company, ARINC Incorporated, Intelligent Transportation Society of America and John Hopkins University of Applied Physics Laboratory. Each petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Commission's *Report and Order* , which adopted licensing and service rules for the Dedicated Short Range Communications
(DSRC)Service in the Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS)Radio Service, located in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band (5.9 GHz band) licensing and service rules for the Dedicated Short Range Communications
(DSRC)Service in the Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS)Radio Service located in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band (5.9 GHz band). DATES: Effective November 6, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical Information: Tim Maguire, *Tim.Maguire@FCC.gov* , Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
(202)418-0680, or TTY
(202)418-7233. Legal Information: Jeannie Benfaida, *Jeannie.Benfaida@FCC.gov* , Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(202)418-0680, or TTY
(202)418-7233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's *Memorandum Opinion and Order* , FCC 06-110, adopted July 20, 2006 and released on July 26, 2006. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: *http://www.fcc.gov* . Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at
(202)418-7426 or TTY
(202)418-7365 or at *Brian.Millin@fcc.gov* . 1. In the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* , the Commission takes the following actions: • Designates Channel 172 (frequencies 5.855-5.865 GHz) exclusively for vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications for accident avoidance and mitigation, and safety of life and property applications; and designate Channel 184 (frequencies 5.915-5.925 GHz) exclusively for high-power, longer-distance communications to be used for public safety applications involving safety of life and property, including road intersection collision mitigation. • Requires licensees to file a notice of construction with the Commission for each site registered and to clarify that site priority attaches to prior registered sites that have been fully constructed within the requisite twelve-month construction period. • Amends the power reduction rule to only apply to DSRC Roadside Unit antenna height only between eight and fifteen meters, thereby providing increased flexibility and reduced implementation costs. • Declines to adopt rules that would implement a software-based prior frequency coordination protocol that directs or recommends that licensees use particular service channels, or that would establish a third party database manager to coordinate and maintain site registrations. • Declines to amend the current emission mask applicable to DSRC Class D devices, pending further developments and recommendations from the ASTM E17.51 DSRC Standards Writing Group. • Declines to adopt rules governing frequency coordination between DSRC licensees and Fixed Satellite Service
(FSS)licensees, pending results of studies of interference methodology and ongoing industry discussions. • Declines to adopt a rule establishing a separate class of On-Board Units to be used exclusively by public safety eligibles, *i.e.* , “public safety OBUs.” • Declines to require dual-band DSRC devices to be uniquely identified in order to be used to provide DSRC services in the 5.9 GHz band. I. Procedural Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act 2. The order does not contain any new or modified information collection. B. Report to Congress 3. The Commission will send a copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). C. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 4. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), a Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)was incorporated in the *DSRC Report and Order* . In view of the fact that we have adopted further rule amendments in this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* , we have included this Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. This Certification conforms to the RFA. 5. The RFA requires that regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the term “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:
(1)Is independently owned and operated;
(2)is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 6. This *Memorandum Opinion and Order* amends our rules to require licensees to file a notice of construction to the Commission for each site registered and clarify that site priority attaches to prior registered sites that have fully constructed within the twelve month construction period; amends the antenna height correction factor adopted for DSRC to increase flexibility and reduce implementation costs to public safety, and designates Channel 172 (5.855-5.865 GHz) for vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications for accident avoidance and mitigation, and Channel 184 (5.915-5.925 GHz) for high-power, longer-distance communications for public safety applications and road intersection vehicular collision mitigation. These rule changes are not expected to affect the cost of DSRC equipment or implementation. Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 7. The Commission will send a copy of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* , including a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* and (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the **Federal Register** . II. Ordering Clauses 8. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), and 332, this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* is adopted. 9. It is further ordered that, the amendments of the Commission's rules as set forth in rule changes are adopted November 6, 2006. 10. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* , including the Supplemental Final Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 90, and 95 Communications. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 90 and 95 to read as follows: PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 *et seq.* ; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 303(r), and 309. 2. Section 1.946 is amended by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 1.946 Construction and coverage requirements.
(d)*Licensee notification of compliance.* A licensee who commences service or operations within the construction period or meets its coverage or substantial services obligations within the coverage period must notify the Commission by filing FCC Form 601. The notification must be filed within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction or coverage period. Where the authorization is site-specific, if service or operations have begun using some, but not all, of the authorized transmitters, the notification must show to which specific transmitters it applies. PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 3. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7). 4. Section 90.155 is amended by revising paragraph
(i)to read as follows: § 90.155 Time in which station must be placed in operation.
(i)DSRCS Roadside Units
(RSUs)in the 5850-5925 MHz band must be placed in operation within 12 months from the date of registration ( *see* § 90.375) or the authority to operate the RSUs cancels automatically ( *see* § 1.955 of this chapter). Such registration date(s) do not change the overall renewal period of the single license. Licensees must notify the Commission in accordance with § 1.946 of this chapter when registered units are placed in operation within their construction period. 5. Section 90.377 is revised to read as follows: § 90.377 Frequencies available; maximum EIRP and antenna height, and priority communications.
(a)Licensees shall transmit only the power
(EIRP)needed to communicate with an OBU within the communications zone and must take steps to limit the Roadside Unit
(RSU)signal within the zone to the maximum extent practicable.
(b)Frequencies available for assignment to eligible applicants within the 5850-5925 MHz band for RSUs and the maximum EIRP permitted for an RSU with an antenna height not exceeding 8 meters above the roadway bed surface are specified in the table below. Where two EIRP limits are given, the higher limit is permitted only for state or local governmental entities. Channel No. Frequency range
(MHz)Max. EIRP 1
(dBm)Channel use 170 5850-5855 Reserved. 172 5855-5865 33 Service Channel. 2 174 5865-5875 33 Service Channel. 175 5865-5885 23 Service Channel. 3 176 5875-5885 33 Service Channel. 178 5885-5895 33/44.8 Control Channel. 180 5895-5905 23 Service Channel. 181 5895-5915 23 Service Channel. 3 182 5905-5915 23 Service Channel. 184 5915-5925 33/40 Service Channel. 4 1 An RSU may employ an antenna with a height exceeding 8 meters but not exceeding 15 meters provided the EIRP specified in the table above is reduced by a factor of 20 log(Ht/8) in dB where Ht is the height of the radiation center of the antenna in meters above the roadway bed surface. The EIRP is measured as the maximum EIRP toward the horizon or horizontal, whichever is greater, of the gain associated with the main or center of the transmission beam. The RSU antenna height shall not exceed 15 meters above the roadway bed surface. 2 Channel 172 is designated for public safety applications involving safety of life and property. 3 Channel Nos. 174/176 may be combined to create a twenty megahertz channel, designated Channel No. 175. Channels 180/182 may be combined to create a twenty-megahertz channel, designated Channel No. 181. 4 Channel 184 is designated for public safety applications involving safety of life and property. Only those entities meeting the requirements of § 90.373(a) are eligible to hold an authorization to operate on this channel.
(c)Except as provided in paragraphs
(d)and
(e)of this section, non-reserve DSRCS channels are available on a shared basis only for use in accordance with the Commission's rules. All licensees shall cooperate in the selection and use of channels in order to reduce interference. This includes monitoring for communications in progress and any other measures as may be necessary to minimize interference. Licensees of RSUs suffering or causing harmful interference within a communications zone are expected to cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Commission may impose restrictions including specifying the transmitter power, antenna height and direction, additional filtering, or area or hours of operation of the stations concerned. Further the use of any channel at a given geographical location may be denied when, in the judgment of the Commission, its use at that location is not in the public interest; use of any such channel may be restricted as to specified geographical areas, maximum power, or such other operating conditions, contained in this part or in the station authorization.
(d)*Safety/public safety priority.* The following access priority governs all DSRCS operations:
(1)Communications involving the safety of life have access priority over all other DSRCS communications;
(2)Subject to a control channel priority system management strategy ( *see* ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard at § 4.1.1.2(4)), DSRCS communications involving public safety have access priority over all other DSRC communications not listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Roadside Units
(RSUs)operated by state or local governmental entities are presumptively engaged in public safety priority communications.
(e)*Non-priority communications.* DSRCS communications not listed in paragraph
(d)of this section, are non-priority communications. If a dispute arises concerning non-priority communications, the licensee of the later-registered RSU must accommodate the operation of the early registered RSU, *i.e.* , interference protection rights are date-sensitive, based on the date that the RSU is first registered ( *see* § 90.375) and the later-registered RSU must modify its operations to resolve the dispute in accordance with paragraph
(f)of this section.
(f)Except as otherwise provided in the ASTM-DSRC Standard ( *see* § 90.379) for the purposes of paragraph
(e)of this section, objectionable interference will be considered to exist when the Commission receives a complaint and the difference in signal strength between the earlier-registered RSU and the later-registered RSU (anywhere within the earlier-registered RSU's communication zone) is 18 dB or less (co-channel). Later-registered RSUs causing objectionable interference must correct the interference immediately unless written consent is obtained from the licensee of the earlier-registered RSU. PART 95—PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES 6. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. 7. Section 95.1511 is revised to read as follows: § 95.1511 Frequencies available.
(a)The following table indicates the channel designations of frequencies available for assignment to eligible applicants within the 5850-5925 MHz band for On-Board Units (OBUs): 1 Channel No. Channel use Frequency range
(MHz)170 Reserved 5850-5855 172 Service Channel 2 5855-5865 174 Service Channel 5865-5875 175 Service Channel 3 5865-5885 176 Service Channel 5875-5885 178 Control Channel 5885-5895 180 Service Channel 5895-5905 181 Service Channel 3 5895-5915 182 Service Channel 5905-5915 184 Service Channel 4 5915-5925 1 The maximum output power for portable DSRCS-OBUs is 1.0 mW. *See* § 95.639(i). 2 Channel 172 is designated for public safety applications involving safety of life and property. 3 Channel Nos. 174/176 may be combined to create a twenty megahertz channel, designated Channel No. 175. Channels 180/182 may be combined to create a twenty-megahertz channel, designated Channel No. 181. 4 Channel 184 is designated for public safety applications involving safety of life and property.
(b)Except as provided in paragraph
(c)of this section, non-reserve DSRCS channels are available on a shared basis only for use in accordance with the Commission's rules. All licensees shall cooperate in the selection and use of channels in order to reduce interference. This includes monitoring for communications in progress and any other measures as may be necessary to minimize interference. Licensees suffering or causing harmful interference within a communications zone are expected to cooperate and resolve this problem by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Commission may impose restrictions, including specifying the transmitter power, antenna height and direction, additional filtering, or area or hours of operation of the stations concerned. Further, the use of any channel at a given geographical location may be denied when, in the judgment of the Commission, its use at that location is not in the public interest; the use of any channel may be restricted as to specified geographical areas, maximum power, or such other operating conditions, contained in this part or in the station authorization.
(c)*Safety/public safety priority.* The following access priority governs all DSRCS operations:
(1)Communications involving the safety of life have access priority over all other DSRCS communications;
(2)Subject to a control channel priority system management strategy (see ASTM E2213-03 DSRC Standard at § 4.1.1.2(4)), DSRCS communications involving public safety have access priority over all other DSRC communications not listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. On-Board Units
(OBUs)operated by state or local governmental entities are presumptively engaged in public safety priority communications.
(d)*Non-priority communications.* DSRCS communications not listed in paragraph
(c)of this section, are non-priority communications. If a dispute arises concerning non-priority DSRCS-OBU communications with Roadside Units (RSUs), the provisions of § 90.377(e) and
(f)of this chapter will apply. Disputes concerning non-priority DSRCS-OBU communications not associated with RSUs are governed by paragraph
(b)of this section. [FR Doc. E6-14795 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 90 [WT Docket No. 02-55; ET Docket No. 00-258; ET Docket No. 95-18, RM-9498; RM-10024; FCC 06-63] Private Land Mobile Services; 800 MHz Public Safety Interference Proceeding AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Correcting amendments. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the **Federal Register** on December 28, 2005, revising Commission rules. That document contained discrepancies between the text of the order and the final rules set forth at § 90.677. This document corrects the final regulations by revising 47 CFR 90.677. DATES: Effective September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberto Mussenden, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division at
(202)418-0838. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a Federal Communications Commission
(FCC)Order which, * inter alia, * corrects a **Federal Register** document (70 FR 76704, December 28, 2005). Previously, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order, which among other things amended the rules governing dispute resolution between licensees who must reconfigure their systems to alleviate interference to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band. The Memorandum Opinion and Order contained discrepancies between the text of the order and the final rules in § 90.677 of the rules. In this document we correct those discrepancies. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90 Communications. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Accordingly, 47 CFR part 90 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments: PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7). 2. Amend § 90.677, by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 90.677 Reconfiguration of the 806-824/851-869 MHz band in order to separate cellular systems from non-cellular systems.
(d)*Transition Administrator.*
(1)The Transition Administrator, or other mediator, shall attempt to resolve disputes referred to it before the conclusion of the mandatory negotiation period as described in § 90.677(c) within thirty working days after the Transition Administrator has received a submission by one party and a response from the other party. Any party thereafter may seek expedited non-binding arbitration which must be completed within thirty days of the Transition Administrator's, or other mediator's recommended decision or advice. Should issues still remain unresolved after mediation or arbitration they shall be referred to the Chief of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau within ten days of the Transition Administrator's or other mediator's advice, or if arbitration has occurred, within ten days of the completion of arbitration. When referring an unresolved matter to the Chief of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, the Transition Administrator shall forward the entire record on any disputed issues, including such dispositions thereof that the Transition Administrator has considered. Upon receipt of such record and advice, the Commission will decide the disputed issues based on the record submitted. The authority to make such decisions is delegated to the Chief of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau who may decide the disputed issue or designate it for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. If the Chief of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau decides an issue, any party to the dispute wishing to appeal the decision may do so by filing with the Commission, within ten days of the effective date of the initial decision, a Petition for de novo review; whereupon the matter will be set for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Any disputes submitted to the Transition Administrator after the conclusion of the mandatory negotiation period as described in § 90.677(c) shall be resolved as described in § 90.677(d)(2).
(2)If no agreement is reached during either the voluntary or mandatory negotiating periods, all disputed issues shall be referred to the Transition Administrator, or other mediator, who shall attempt to resolve them. If disputed issues remain thirty working days after the end of the mandatory negotiation period, the Transition Administrator shall forward the record to the Chief of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, together with advice on how the matter(s) may be resolved. The Chief of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division is hereby delegated the authority to rule on disputed issues, de novo. If the Chief of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau decides an issue, any party to the dispute wishing to appeal the decision may do so by filing with the Commission, within ten days of the effective date of the initial decision, a Petition for de novo review; whereupon the matter will be set for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. [FR Doc. E6-14788 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary of Transportation 49 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. OST-1999-6189] RIN 9991-AA50 Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule revises delegations of authority to carry out the Federal hazardous material transportation law, as amended by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Title VII of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users or “SAFETEA-LU”), and in accordance with the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423 (November 30, 2004) (Mineta Act) that were previously published in 71 FR 30828 (May 31, 2006). This final rule also adds delegations of authority to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA)to carry out certain provisions of SAFETEA-LU. DATES: *Effective Date:* September 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca S. Behravesh, Attorney Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone
(202)366-9314. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* , and the regulations issued thereunder apply to the transportation of hazardous materials by air, railroad, highway, and water. In 2004, the Mineta Act established the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and RITA and transferred Secretarial authorities previously exercised by the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA)to PHMSA and RITA. While the Secretary delegated authorities to PHMSA and RITA under the Mineta Act, the Mineta Act did not remove, restrict, divest or restructure any existing authority, including the authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials, that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and FMCSA previously possessed. Accordingly, certain authorities that apply only to a single mode of transportation were previously delegated to a modal transportation agency within DOT, and enforcement authority was delegated to PHMSA and the modal agencies: FAA, FRA, and FMCSA. 1 1 The United States Coast Guard also exercises authority under the Federal hazardous material transportation law under the authority previously delegated to it when it was part of DOT. Under 6 U.S.C. 468(b) “the authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard * * * including the authorities and functions of the Department of Transportation relating thereto” were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). *See also* 6 U.S.C. 551(d)(2) which provides that DHS “shall have all functions relating to the agency [transferred to DHS] that any other official could by law exercise in relation to the agency immediately before such transfer.” The Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005, which is Title VII of SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1891 (Aug. 10, 2005), amended 49 U.S.C. 5121 to provide additional authority to enforce the Federal hazardous material transportation law and the regulations issued under that law. The delegations of authority to FAA, FRA, and FMCSA are being revised to reflect that additional authority, which includes inspecting, investigating, and opening outer packages suspected of containing hazardous materials; having suspected hazardous materials tested; removing from transportation in commerce packages that may pose an imminent hazard; issuing emergency orders necessary to abate imminent hazards; and defending the agency's actions before any administrative or adjudicatory board proceedings related to the agency's implementation of this additional inspection and enforcement authority. This rulemaking revises 49 CFR 1.47(j)(1), 1.49(s)(1), and 1.73(d)(1) to reflect these delegations. In addition, this final rule removes from these provisions the parallel phrases “relating to investigations, records, inspections, penalties, and specific relief” and “including the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair or test of containers which are represented, marked, certified, or sold for use in the bulk transportation of hazardous materials by [air, railroad, and highway, respectively].” This language simply describes the authority conferred by 49 U.S.C. 5121 (administrative authority to conduct inspections and investigations related to the manufacture, fabrication, and maintenance of packagings or containers and the transportation of a hazardous material in commerce); 5122 (civil enforcement); 5123 (civil penalties); and 5124 (criminal penalties), and is being deleted as superfluous. In the final rule published on May 31, 2005, similar superfluous language was removed from the delegations to PHMSA in section 1.53(b)(1). *See* 71 FR 30828, 30833. The removal of this language is intended to simplify the regulatory text and does not amend, change, modify, or revise the underlying statutory authority that is delegated to FAA, FRA, FMCSA, and PHMSA. The authority to delegate the inspection and enforcement authority in the Federal hazardous material transportation law in this manner is conferred by 49 U.S.C. 108(g). This rule also removes outdated 49 CFR 1.47(k), which essentially duplicates the FAA's authority in § 1.47(j)(1), but refers to the section numbers of the inspection and enforcement authority in the Federal hazardous material transportation law before the statute was recodified in 1994. *See* Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745 (July 5, 1994). Existing subsection 1.49(s)(2) is also removed, and subsection 1.49(s)(1) is redesignated section 1.49(s), because the authorities delegated in paragraph
(2)are no longer in effect: The rail transportation study mandated in 49 U.S.C. 5105(b) has been completed and was transmitted to Congress in September 2005 and Congress repealed 49 U.S.C. 5111 in SAFETEA-LU. In addition, this rule delegates to RITA and FMCSA authority to carry out provisions of SAFETEA-LU, beyond the delegations contained in the final rule published in the **Federal Register** on May 31, 2006. *See* 71 FR 30830, 30833. This rule also revises 49 CFR 1.74(a) to reflect the broad role and authority of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy in all Departmental policy matters. *See* 49 CFR 1.23(b). The Under Secretary provides leadership in the development of all transportation policy, including, but not limited to, matters involving hazardous materials transportation and intermodal and multimodal transportation. In this capacity, the Under Secretary resolves disputes among DOT's Operating Administrations on transportation matters, provides oversight, review, and coordination of policy functions carried out by the Operating Administrations, and performs all other functions necessary to lead policy development and advise the Secretary concerning transportation policy. Because this rule relates to departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, this final rule facilitates enforcement of the laws and regulations covered by this delegation. The Acting Secretary finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . Regulatory Analysis and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). There are no costs associated with this rule. B. Executive Order 13132 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. C. Executive Order 13175 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) do not apply. We also do not believe this rule would impose any costs on small entities because it simply delegates authority from one official to another. Therefore, I certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1 Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies). For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation amends 49 CFR part 1 as follows: PART 1—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); Public Law 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736; Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2065; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 41 U.S.C. 414; Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423; Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144. 2. Amend § 1.46 by adding new paragraph
(n)to read as follows: § 1.46 Delegations to the Administrator of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
(n)*Transportation research and development strategic planning.* Carry out the function vested in the Secretary by Section 5208 of Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005). 3-4. Revise § 1.47(j)(1) and remove paragraph (k). § 1.47 Delegations to Federal Aviation Administrator. (j)(1) Except as delegated by § 1.74(a), carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c), and (d), 5122, 5123, and 5124, with particular emphasis on the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by air. 5. Revise § 1.49(s) to read as follows: § 1.49 Delegations to Federal Railroad Administrator.
(s)Except as delegated by § 1.74(a), carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b),
(c)and (d), 5122, 5123, and 5124, with particular emphasis on the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by railroad. 6. Revise § 1.53(b) to read as follows: § 1.53 Delegations to the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
(b)*Hazardous materials.* Except as delegated by § 1.74(a):
(1)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c),
(d)and (e), 5122, 5123, and 5124, with particular emphasis on the shipment of hazardous materials and the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair or test of multi-modal containers that are represented, marked, certified, or sold for use in the transportation of hazardous materials; and
(2)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by all other provisions of the Federal hazardous material transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* ) except as delegated by §§ 1.47(j)(2) and 1.73(d)(2) of this chapter and by paragraph 2(99) of Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170. 7. Amend § 1.73 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(9); b. Revise paragraph (d)(1); c. Revise paragraph (e); d. Revise paragraph (q); and e. Remove paragraphs
(r)through (y). The revisions read as follows: § 1.73 Delegations to the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
(a)* * *
(7)Chapter 145, sections 14501, 14502, 14504, and 14504a relating to Federal-State relations, and section 14506 relating to identification of vehicles;
(9)Chapter 149, sections 14901 through 14912 and 14915 relating to civil and criminal penalties for violations of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B. (d)(1) Except as delegated by § 1.74(a), carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c), and (d), 5122, 5123, and 5124, with particular emphasis on the transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by highway.
(e)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by:
(1)49 U.S.C. chapter 313 relating to commercial motor vehicle operators, including the requirement of section 31305(a)(5)(C) that States issue a hazardous materials endorsement to a commercial driver's license only after being informed pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5103a that the applicant does not pose a security risk warranting denial of the license; and
(2)Section 4123(c),
(d)and
(e)of Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1735 (Aug. 10, 2005) relating to grants, funding, and contract authority and availability, respectively, for commercial driver's license information system modernization.
(q)Carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by the following sections of Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (Aug. 10, 2005):
(1)Section 4105(b)(1) relating to the study concerning predatory tow truck operations;
(2)Section 4126 relating to the commercial vehicle information systems and networks program;
(3)Section 4128 relating to grants under the safety data improvement program;
(4)Section 4129 relating to the operation of commercial motor vehicles by individuals who use insulin to treat diabetes mellitus;
(5)Section 4130 relating to the operators of vehicles transporting agricultural commodities and farm supplies;
(6)Section 4131 relating to the maximum hours of service for operators of ground water well drilling rigs;
(7)Section 4132 relating to hours of service for operators of utility service vehicles;
(8)Section 4133 relating to hours of service rules for operators providing transportation to movie production sites;
(9)Section 4134 relating to the grant program for persons to train operators of commercial motor vehicles;
(10)Section 4135 relating to the task force concerning commercial driver's license program;
(11)Section 4139(a)(1) relating to the training of and outreach to State personnel; section (b)(1) relating to a review of Canadian and Mexican compliance with Federal motor vehicles safety standards; and the first sentence of section (b)(2) relating to the report concerning the findings and conclusions of the review required by section (b)(1);
(12)Section 4146 relating to an hours-of-service exception during harvest periods;
(13)Section 4147 relating to emergency conditions requiring immediate response;
(14)Section 4213 relating to the establishment of a working group for the development of practices and procedures to enhance Federal-State relations;
(15)Section 4214 relating to consumer complaint information;
(16)Section 5503 relating to the motor carrier efficiency study; and
(17)Section 5513(a), under the condition of section (m), relating to the research grant for a thermal imaging inspection system demonstration project. 8. Amend § 1.74 introductory text and paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 1.74 Delegations to the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy. The Under Secretary for Transportation Policy is delegated authority to:
(a)Lead the development of transportation policy and serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary on all transportation policy matters. Issued this 24th day of August 2006, at Washington, DC. Maria Cino, Acting Secretary of Transportation. [FR Doc. E6-14802 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 060216044-6044-01; I.D. 090106A] Fisheries of the Economic Exclusive Zone Off Alaska; Deep-Water Species Fishery by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2006 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the deep-water species fishery in the GOA. DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 5, 2006, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(FMP)prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. The 2006 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the deep-water species fishery in the GOA is 800 metric tons as established by the 2006 and 2007 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (71 FR 10870, March 3, 2006). In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 2006 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery are all rockfish of the genera *Sebastes* and *Sebastolobus* , deep-water flatfish, rex sole, arrowtooth flounder, and sablefish. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and
(f)apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 31, 2006. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: September 1, 2006. James P. Burgess, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-7491 Filed 9-1-06; 1:10 pm]
Connectionstraces to 49
Traces to 49 documents
register
CFR
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Housatonic River.§ 117.207
- Temporary change to a drawbridge operating schedule.§ 117.35
- Disabilities that are proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury.§ 3.310
- Rating of disabilities aggravated by service.§ 3.322
- Aggravation of preservice disability.§ 3.306
- Special consideration for paired organs and extremities.§ 3.383
U.S. Code
- General technical assistance§ 1469d
- Congressional declaration of purpose§ 4321
- Administration and operation of noninsured crop assistance program§ 7333
- Creation and purpose of Corporation§ 714
- CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE RESEARCH GRANTS.§ 1605
- Rule making§ 553
- Basic entitlement§ 1110
- Definitions§ 101
- Aggravation§ 1153
- Rules and regulations§ 501
- Special consideration for certain cases of loss of paired organs or extremities§ 1160
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- SHORT TITLE.§ 1
- Purposes of chapter; Federal Communications Commission created§ 151
- Federal Communications Commission§ 154
- Purpose§ 5101
- Preserving Coast Guard mission performance§ 468
- Transitional authorities§ 551
- Administrative§ 5121
- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration§ 108
- Transporting certain highly radioactive material§ 5105
- Repealed. Pub. L. 109–59, title VII, § 7111, Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1899]§ 5111
- Definitions§ 601
- General powers§ 322
- Administrative adjustment of claims§ 2672
- Collection and compromise§ 3711
- Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses§ 5103a
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
statutes-at-large
42 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 985
- 7 USC 601-674
- 7 CFR 1437
- 7 CFR 799
- 7 CFR 3014
- 5 CFR 1320
- 48 USC 1469
- 14 CFR 71
- 32 CFR 706
- 32 CFR 2002
- 33 CFR 117
- 38 CFR 3
- 44 USC 3501-3521
- 5 USC 601-612
- 38 CFR 4
- 15 USC 79
- 47 CFR 90
- 47 CFR 90.677
- 49 CFR 1
- Pub. L. 108-426
- 118 Stat. 2423
- Pub. L. 109-59
- 119 Stat. 1144
- 49 CFR 1.47(j)(1)
- 49 CFR 1.47(k)
- Pub. L. 103-272
- 108 Stat. 745
- 49 CFR 1.74(a)
- 49 CFR 1.23(b)
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- Pub. L. 101-552
- Pub. L. 106-159
- 113 Stat. 1748
- Pub. L. 107-71
- Pub. L. 107-295
- 116 Stat. 2065
- Pub. L. 107-296
- 116 Stat. 2135
- 41 USC 414
- 119 Stat. 1735
+ 2 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Cite7 CFR 985
Cite7 USC 601-674
Cite7 CFR 1437
Cites 91 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources