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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-10-13 · Coast Guard, DHS · Notices

Notices. Notice of interpretation

20,069 words·~91 min read·/register/2006/10/13/06-8193

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

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [USCG-2006-25843] Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of interpretation. SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is providing a notice of interpretation that the prohibition in 46 U.S.C. 6308 on the use of any part of a report of a Coast Guard Marine Casualty Investigation Report
(MCIR)in certain administrative proceedings does not prohibit use of such reports in the process used by the Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center
(NPFC)for determining whether to pay or deny claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. DATES: Effective October 13, 2006. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material by only one of the following means:
(1)By mail to the Docket Management Facility (USCG-2006-25843), U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(2)By delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(3)By fax to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.
(4)Electronically through the Web site for the Docket Management System at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The Docket Management Facility maintains the public docket for the rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room PL-401, located on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the same address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may electronically access the public docket on the internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Electronic forms of all comments received into any of our dockets can be searched by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor unit, etc.) and is open to the public without restriction. You may review the Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov/.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice, please contact Benjamin White, U.S. Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), telephone 202-493-6863. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose The Coast Guard investigates and reports on marine casualties pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 63. Under 46 U.S.C. 6308 no part of a report of a marine casualty investigation “shall be admissible as evidence or subject to discovery in any civil or administrative proceedings, other than an administrative proceeding initiated by the United States.” Marine casualties may result in the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil to the navigable waters, adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone. The National Pollution Funds Center
(NPFC)processes claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for oil removal costs and certain damages that result from such discharges or threats under authority of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA)(33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). The circumstances of a marine casualty will often bear on the entitlement of a claimant to payment of its claim, particularly for vessel owners or operators who may claim a complete defense to their own liability for such costs or damages or entitlement to limit their liability under OPA. In the past, the NPFC has not considered such reports of marine casualty investigations on the grounds that a broad interpretation of 46 U.S.C. 6308 might proscribe their use in the NPFC's claims processes. However, this resulted, in some instances, in the NPFC having to duplicate the investigative process in order to gather evidence that was included in a Marine Casualty Investigation Report (MCIR). This, in turn, resulted in delays while those duplicative investigative efforts were carried out. Further, in those instances where the claimant sought to make a MCIR a part of the record of its claim, the NPFC's position resulted in the claimant being denied the opportunity to do so or have that report considered by NPFC. In order to avoid duplication of efforts and expedite the claims process, the Coast Guard has recently examined the provisions of 46 U.S.C. 6308 to determine whether Congress, in fact, intended the broad interpretation followed by the NPFC in the past. The Coast Guard has concluded that the statute in question, 46 U.S.C. 6308, was not meant to prohibit the use by NPFC of all or parts of a MCIR in its claims process under 33 U.S.C. 2713. The plain language of 46 U.S.C. 6308 does not indicate an intent to include the NPFC's claims process, because that process is an internal, informal agency process. The NPFC's claims process is administrative. However, it is not an administrative proceeding as the term is used in 46 U.S.C. 6308, which refers to proceedings subject to rules of evidence and discovery. The statute does not appear to be directed at the Coast Guard's internal use of its MCIRs, or a process as informal as the NPFC's claims process. To interpret the statute otherwise would result in unnecessary duplication of government and claimant investigative resources, a result that was borne out in practice and was not intended by Congress. Accordingly, because the NPFC claims procedures under 33 U.S.C. 2713 and the implementing regulations at 33 CFR part 136 are internal, informal administrative processes the use of a MCIR in those processes is not precluded by 46 U.S.C. 6308. The NPFC may consider and rely on any part of a report of a MCIR in determining whether to pay or deny a claim. While any part of such a MCIR may be considered, it is the enclosures to such a report, such as witness statements, navigation records and vessel logs that will most likely bear on any determination to pay or deny a claim. While such reports may be of use to NPFC in this regard, and may also be submitted by claimants to support their claims, the NPFC is not bound by such reports of investigation. The NPFC may require additional information from claimants in order to support their claims and may, considering the record as a whole, find additional facts or different facts than those determined in such reports of investigation. Dated: October 10, 2006. William D. Baumgartner, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Judge Advocate General. [FR Doc. E6-17042 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency Amendment to Notices of Emergency Declarations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notices of emergency declarations for 44 States and the District of Columbia granted due to the influx of evacuees from areas struck by Hurricane Katrina. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472,
(202)646-2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident periods for the following emergencies are closed effective October 1, 2005: Arkansas (FEMA-3215-EM), Texas (FEMA-3216-EM), Tennessee (FEMA-3217-EM), Georgia (FEMA-3218-EM), Oklahoma (FEMA-3219-EM), Florida (FEMA-3220-EM), West Virginia (FEMA-3221-EM), North Carolina (FEMA-3222-EM), Utah (FEMA-3223-EM), Colorado (FEMA-3224-EM), Michigan (FEMA-3225-EM), District of Columbia (FEMA-3226-EM), Washington (FEMA-3227-EM), Oregon (FEMA-3228-EM), New Mexico (FEMA-3229-EM), Illinois (FEMA-3230-EM), Kentucky (FEMA-3231-EM), Missouri (FEMA-3232-EM), South Carolina (FEMA-3233-EM), South Dakota (FEMA-3234-EM), Pennsylvania (FEMA-3235-EM), Kansas (FEMA-3236-EM), Alabama (FEMA-3237-EM), Indiana (FEMA-3238-EM), Iowa (FEMA-3239-EM), Virginia (FEMA-3240-EM), Arizona (FEMA-3241-EM), Minnesota (FEMA-3242-EM), Nevada (FEMA-3243-EM), Idaho (FEMA-3244-EM), Nebraska (FEMA-3245-EM), Connecticut (FEMA-3246-EM), North Dakota (FEMA-3247-EM), California (FEMA-3248-EM), Wisconsin (FEMA-3249-EM), Ohio (FEMA-3250-EM), Maryland (FEMA-3251-EM), Massachusetts (FEMA-3252-EM), Montana (FEMA-3253-EM), Rhode Island (FEMA-3255-EM), Maine (FEMA-3256-EM), New Jersey (FEMA-3257-EM), New Hampshire (FEMA-3258-EM), New York (FEMA-3262-EM), and Delaware (FEMA-3263-EM). R. David Paulison, Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management, and Director of FEMA. [FR Doc. E6-17027 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2006-0002] RIN 1660-ZA12 Privacy Act of 1974; National Disaster Medical System Medical Professional Credentials System of Records AGENCY: National Disaster Medical System; Response Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice of Privacy Act system of records. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security gives notice that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Response Division, National Disaster Medical System, is establishing a new system of records entitled the “National Disaster Medical System Medical Professional Credentials System of Records.” This system of records will enable the National Disaster Medical System to have an efficient, centralized method for collecting medical credentials and verifying continued certification of the credentials of deployable medical personnel. DATES: The system of records will be effective November 13, 2006, unless comments are received that result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2006-0002, by *one* of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments; • *E-mail: FEMA-RULES@dhs.gov.* Include Docket ID FEMA-2006-0002 in the subject line of the message; • *Fax:* 202-646-4536 (not a toll-free number); or • *Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:* Rules Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472; Maureen Cooney, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 601 S. 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID (if available) for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 500 C Street, SW., Room 835, Washington, DC 20472. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Captain Ana Marie Balingit-Wines, Credentialing Program Manager, FEMA/NDMS, 500 C Street, SW., Suite 713, Washington, DC 20472, at 202-646-4248, for credentialing matters; Jean Hardin, Attorney, FEMA Office of Chief Counsel, General Law Division, 500 C Street, SW., Room 713 H, Washington, DC 20472, at 202-646-4059; Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 601 S. 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220, at 571-227-3813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), authorized by 42 U.S.C. 300hh-11(b), has primary responsibility for providing emergency medical care after a natural or man-made disaster or in the event of a public health emergency. NDMS functions as a coordinated effort by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, but is managed by FEMA's Response Division. NDMS personnel are composed of medical professionals and allied health members 1 who are hired and deployed specifically to provide medical care in the event of an emergency. NDMS members are activated and employed as Federal employees not only to provide health care services, but also health-related social services, family assistance, and coordination with other assisting agencies. NDMS personnel also function as appropriate auxiliary service providers for mortuary and veterinary services to respond to the needs of victims during an emergency. These individuals are assigned to Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATS) or other specialty teams that are placed in various locations throughout the United States. 1 Allied health professionals/members are employed in those clinical healthcare professions distinct from the medical, dental, and nursing profession. As the name implies, they are all allies in the healthcare team, working together to make the healthcare system function. To facilitate the continued provision of high quality care to both people and animals, NDMS collects the information necessary to make decisions concerning the hiring and retention of these individuals for disaster relief efforts. In addition, NDMS collects information on qualified medical professionals who are System Members of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System (US&R), which also falls under the responsibility of FEMA's Response Division. To assess qualifications, NDMS asks applicants to complete the Optional Form
(OF)612 or other standard formats for applications for Federal employment or status. While the employment forms, like the OF 612 (used to gather information necessary for credentialing) are currently submitted in paper format, NDMS has developed electronic data entry forms specifically for credentialing and the forms have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for approval. Information taken from the completed paper applications is transferred to a database that is maintained by NDMS. The information that is collected on the OF 612 or other application formats, consists of: • Name (Last, First, Middle), including any other names known by and when. • Social Security Number. • Position Being Applied For. • Home Address, including street address, City, State, and Zip Code. • Home Telephone. • Cell Phone, if applicable. • Fax number, if applicable. • E-mail address, if applicable. • Current Employer Name, if applicable, or place of employment. • Primary Office Address, including street address, City, State and Zip Code. • Primary Office Telephone, Fax, or E-mail. • Place of Birth, City, State, Country other than U.S. • Citizenship, and if not a citizen, Status and Visa Number. • Gender. • Military Service History, if applicable, and copy of DD 214. • Other Employment History, including name, location, dates, and contact information. • Other health care facility affiliations. • Education Background, including names and dates for all certificates and diplomas. • Specialty(ies), including all certificates or other documentation. • If certifying Board membership, Board name and address, and most recent date. • Certification, date of initial certification and most recent certification. • Examinations passed. • Licenses—include for all States. • Drug Enforcement Administration Registration Number, if applicable. • References, including name, address, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses. • Other information, such as criminal history, medical malpractice action, or other disciplinary action taken against the applicant, if applicable. (This includes statements from all malpractice insurance carriers, dating back ten years.) This collected information serves as the basis by which hiring officials can certify the providers' basic qualifications for the jobs to which they are assigned, as well as to determine the clinical privileges 2 designated to specific team members. The verification of credentials ensures that the medical treatment provided is done by qualified, licensed, professionals who meet the industry standard. Credential verification also provides DHS the ability to utilize these employees in the most effective way possible. Similar information on US&R medical professionals is included in the database. 2 Privileges are granted by an institution based on credentials, skill currency, skill proficiency, and resources available within the organization. For example, if an individual was trained in a skill ten years ago but has not practiced that skill recently, the institution would not allow that skill to be performed within its facility without demonstrated refresher training. Privileges are used to ensure providers and institutions are providing quality care. The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) embodies fair information principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, uses and disseminates personally identifiable information. The Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The National Disaster Medical System Medical Professional Credentials File System established by this notice is such a system of records. The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the **Federal Register** a description of the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses for which such information may be disseminated and the purpose for which the system is maintained. The following description is provided for the National Disaster Medical System Medical Professional Credentials System of Records. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), notification of the creation of this record system has been provided to Congress and to OMB. DHS/FEMA/NDMS-1 SYSTEM NAME: National Disaster Medical System Medical Professional Credentials System of Records. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified. SYSTEM LOCATION: The database and paper records for this system of records will be maintained within NDMS offices at FEMA Headquarters, 500 C Street, SW., Suite 713, Washington, DC. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: This system of records covers the following types of medical professionals and allied health members who apply to the NDMS and US&R: • Doctors (or physicians). • Physician's Assistants. • Dentists. • Dental Assistants and Hygienists. • Pharmacists. • Pharmacy Assistants. • Nurses—Registered and Licensed Vocational or Licensed Practical Nurses. • Nurse's Aides. • Dietitians. • Psychologists. • Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians. • Social Workers. • Therapists. • Radiology Technicians. • Respiratory Therapists. • Medical Technologists. • Counselors. • Optometrists and Opticians. • Veterinarians. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: FEMA will collect medical credential and qualification information from all medical professionals and allied health members who apply to the NDMS and US&R. The types of information to be maintained in the system of records include: • Name (Last, First, Middle), including any other names known by and when. • Social Security number. • Position Being Applied For. • Home Address, including street address, City, State, and Zip Code. • Home Telephone. • Cell Phone, if applicable. • Fax number, if applicable. • E-mail address, if applicable. • Current Employer Name, if applicable, or place of employment. • Primary Office Address, including street address, City, State and Zip Code. • Primary Office Telephone, Fax, or E-mail. • Place of Birth, City, State, Country other than U.S. • Citizenship, and if not a citizen, Status and Visa Number. • Gender. • Military Service History, if applicable, and copy of DD 214. • Other Employment History, including name, location, dates, and contact information. • Other health care facility affiliations. • Education Background, including names and dates for all certificates and diplomas. • Specialty(ies), including all certificates or other documentation. • If certifying Board membership, Board name and address, and most recent date. • Certification, date of initial certification and most recent certification. • Examinations passed. • Licenses—include for all States. • Drug Enforcement Agency Number. • References, including name, address, phone numbers and e-mail addresses. • Other information, such as criminal history, medical malpractice action, or other disciplinary action taken against the applicant, if applicable. (This includes statements from all malpractice insurance carriers, dating back ten years.) Copies of actual diplomas, transcripts, licenses, or certificates, a signed attestation form and a release of information form will also be requested from the applicants, and, in some cases, certified copies must be sent from the institution or certifying agency. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: The collection of information is based on the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (2002), 6 U.S.C. 101, *et seq.* , and the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 11101, *et seq.* The NDMS Statute, 42 U.S.C. 300hh-11, is the authority that places NDMS within DHS/FEMA. The National Response Plan, Emergency Support Function #8, “Public Health and Medical Services Annex” also delineates NDMS responsibilities for providing health care and coordinating with the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Health and Human Services in an emergency requiring implementation of the National Response Plan. PURPOSE(S): Information is collected on potential and current NDMS medical providers and US&R medical providers for three primary purposes: Hiring decisions; certification/recertification; and privileging. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (b)(3) as follows:
(A)To a Member of Congress or a Congressional staff member in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the records pertain.
(B)To the Department of Justice
(DOJ)or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when:
(1)DHS, or
(2)any employee of DHS in his/her official capacity, or
(3)any employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity where DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee, or
(4)the United States or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and DHS determines that disclosure is relevant and necessary to the litigation.
(C)To the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA)or other Federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. sections 2904 and 2906.
(D)To an agency, organization, or individual for the purposes of performing authorized audit or oversight operations.
(E)Where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil or regulatory—the relevant records may be referred to an appropriate Federal, State, local, or tribal law enforcement authority or other appropriate agency charged with investigating or prosecuting such a violation or enforcing or implementing such law.
(F)To a Federal, State, local and tribal government to help in identifying and meeting health and medical needs of victims in an Incident of National Significance.
(G)To the other Federal agencies with which NDMS coordinates under the National Response Plan to include the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
(H)To credentialing entities, governmental or private, that NDMS agrees to work with to verify credential information and facilitate exchange of information for deployment purposes. This includes entities, such as the National Practitioner Databank, which serves as a clearinghouse for any derogatory information on medical professionals, such as revoked licenses or other information that may prevent these NDMS members from legally performing the medical duties for the position that they hold. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE Paper records from this system are stored in the FEMA Headquarters Building, NDMS Central Office, at 500 C Street, SW., Suite 713, Washington, DC 20472. The database into which the information is entered is also maintained within the same office space. FEMA Headquarters manages data use at all locations where it will be needed, including all locations where NDMS or US&R members will be deployed. FEMA has a configuration management process that is used to share any necessary information in a consistent and secure manner with all potential users. Copies of paper applications as well as information maintained electronically are stored in a work area that is locked when it is not staffed. The doors to the work area are kept closed. There is limited access given to persons who have a need to access the information to perform their official duties. FEMA computer based records such as databases or e-mails are stored in database servers secured in a file server room in another location and backed up nightly. RETRIEVABILITY: Files and automated data are retrievable by name, social security number, medical profession, geographic area and/or residence of an applicant or existing NDMS or US&R medical professional employee. SAFEGUARDS: Data access within DHS/FEMA computer systems is determined by the system administrator staff on a need-to-know basis only. Access is provided to the online system based upon written authorization of the NDMS Chief or his designee, and will result in generation of a unique userID and password. Passwords must be updated on a regular basis based upon internal FEMA administration requirements. All printouts and paper records will be marked as “For Official Use Only” (FOUO), and will be maintained within NDMS offices at Headquarters location, 500 C Street, SW., Suite 713, Washington, DC 20472. The offices containing these records are locked, with only authorized personnel having unsupervised access. Information is shared internally within DHS only as specified herein on a need-to-know basis and only for purposes of credentialing and for oversight of the program. FEMA limits the sharing of personal information collected as part of the NDMS and US&R medical credentialing process to external agencies on a case-by-case basis. Permission to have the credentialing information is based upon the “need to know.” Once the “need to know” has been established and verified, the information will be shared. Only those portions of the requested information for which the “need to know” has been established will be shared. RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records in this system will be retained in accordance with a schedule approved by NARA for personnel records. Employee files are retained for a period of 65 years after date of employee's separation from the Agency, based on NARA General Records Schedule (GRS), Sec. 1, 1(b). The retention schedule for application information for eligible applicants who are not hired for any reason is delineated in GRS, Schedule 1, Transmittal No. 12, July 2004, Section 33, part a-t, “Examining and Certification Records.” SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Chief Medical Officer, National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), 500 C Street, SW., Suite 713, Washington, DC 20472. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: Requests for Privacy Act protected information must conform with DHS regulations found at 6 CFR Part 5 and FEMA's regulations at 44 CFR Part 6. They must be made in writing, and clearly marked as a “Privacy Act Request” on the envelope and letter. Inquiries should be addressed to FEMA—Records Management Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. Requests may also be sent to: Privacy Act Officer, DHS/FEMA Office of Chief Counsel (OGC), General Law Division, Room 518, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Same as the Notification Procedure above. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURE: Same as the Notification Procedure above. The letter should state clearly and concisely the information contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the information that is sought pursuant to DHS Privacy Act regulations at 6 CFR Part 5 and FEMA regulations at 44 CFR Part 6. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: • Applicants for NDMS health care related jobs and US&R status requiring specific credentials. • Current NDMS medical professionals requiring updated credential verification and privileging. • State and local licensing boards. • Educational institutions. • Sources of information on which to base credentialing decisions for NDMS medical professionals—such as the National Practitioner Databank. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. Dated: October 2, 2006. Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E6-16671 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4400-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Interagency Alien Witness and Informant Record; Form I-854; OMB No. 1615-0046. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until December 12, 2006. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Director, Regulatory Management Division, Clearance Office, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352 or via e-mail at *rfs.regs@dhs.gov.* When submitting comments by e-mail please make sure to add OMB Control Number 1615-0046 in the subject box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this information collection:
(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of currently approved collection(s).
(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Interagency Alien Witness and Informant Record.
(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection:* Form I-854. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* *Primary:* Individuals and Households. The information collection is used by law enforcement agencies to bring alien witnesses and informants to the United States in “S” nonimmigrant classification.
(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* 125 responses at 4.25 hours per response.
(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* 531 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the USCIS Web site at: *http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/pra/index.htm.* If additional information is required contact: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529, Telephone Number
(202)272-8377. Dated: October 10, 2006. Richard A. Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6-17020 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5045-N-41] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone
(202)708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired
(202)708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in *National Coalition for the Homeless* v. *Veterans Administration,* No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.). Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD:
(1)Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless,
(2)its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or
(3)a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless. Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857;
(301)443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581. For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable. For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available. Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the **Federal Register** , the landholding agency, and the property number. For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( *i.e.* , acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: *Agriculture:* Ms. Marsha Pruitt, Realty Officer, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th St., SW., Rm 310B, Washington, DC 20250;
(202)720-4335; *Army:* Ms. Veronica Rines, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Attn: DAIM-ZS, Rm 8536, 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202;
(703)601-2520; *Energy:* Mr. John Watson, Department of Energy, Office of Engineering & Construction Management, ME-90, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585:
(202)586-0072; *GSA:* Mr. John Kelly, Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal, 18th & F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405;
(202)501-0084; *Interior:* Ms. Linda Tribby, Acquisition & Property Management, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS5512, Washington, DC 20240;
(202)513-0747; *Navy:* Mr. Warren Meekins, Associate Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Services, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065;
(202)685-9305; (These are not toll-free numbers). Dated: October 5, 2006. Mark R. Johnston, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. Title V, Federal Surplus Property Program Federal Register Report for 10/13/06 Suitable/Available Properties Buildings (by State) California Trailers 288, 289, 290, 293 Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Menlo Park Co: San Mateo, CA 94025- Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200630006 Status: Excess Comment: various sq. ft., presence of asbestos, most recent use—office, need significant repair, off-site use only Colorado Bldg. 128 Aspen Ranger District Pitkin Co: CO 81601- Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15200630001 Status: Unutilized Comment: 600 sq. ft. cabin, needs extensive repairs, off-site use only Indiana Former SSA 327 W. Marion Street Elkhart Co: IN 46516- Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630015 Status: Surplus Comment: 6636 sq. ft., most recent use—office GSA Number: 1-GR-IN-05962A New Mexico Dwelling #25 Ranger Lane Cuba Co: Sandoval, NM 87013- Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630018 Status: Surplus Comment: 1120 sq. ft., potential hantavirus contamination, off-site use only GSA Number: 7-A-NM-0590 Infra #30203 Fenton Hill Site Mora Co: NM 87535- Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630019 Status: Surplus Comment: 194 sq. ft., potential hantavirus contamination, off-site use only GSA Number: 7-A-NM-0591 Washington Bldg. 87 Yakima Project 1917 Marsh Road Yakima Co: WA 98901- Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630013 Status: Excess Comment: 1032 sq. ft., presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—office, off-site use only Bldg. 88 Yakima Project 1917 Marsh Road Yakima Co: WA 98901- Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630014 Status: Excess Comment: 1032 sq. ft., presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—office, off-site use only Bldg. 127 Yakima Project 1917 Marsh Road Yakima Co: WA 98901- Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630015 Status: Excess Comment: 1152 sq. ft., most recent use—office, off-site use only Bldg. 133 Yakima Project 1917 Marsh Road Yakima Co: WA 98901- Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630016 Status: Excess Comment: 1680 sq. ft., most recent use—office, off-site use only Land (by State) Arizona 2.0 acres Tract No. DB-2-77 I-19 off ramp Tucson Co: AZ Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630006 Status: Excess Comment: 2.0 acres, Del Bac Substation Site California Former Outer Marker Facility 215 W. 118th Street Los Angeles Co: CA 90061- Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630014 Status: Unutilized Comment: 5200 sq. ft./paved GSA Number: 9-U-CA-1614 Kentucky Tract S-2 3301 Leestown Road Lexington Co: Fayette, KY 40511- Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630016 Status: Excess Comment: 40.2 acres/hayfield, potential of sinkholes, potential contamination from adjacent site GSA Number: 4-J-KY-0622 Utah 3.78 acres Jordanelle Reservoir Hwy. 40 Wasatch Co: UT Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630012 Status: Excess Comment: steep sloping land Vermont Former FAA Middle Marker Richardson Road Berlin Corners Co: VT 50053- Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630021 Status: Excess Comment: 0.06 acres and 0.4 in easement, extremely small w/electrical closet GSA Number: 1-U-VT-0477 Suitable/Unavailable Properties Buildings (by State) Kentucky Bldg. 06894 Fort Campbell Christian Co: KY 42223- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630070 Status: Unutilized Comment: 4240 sq. ft., most recent use—vehicle maintenance shop, off-site use only Bldg. 06895 Fort Campbell Christian Co: KY 42223- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630071 Status: Unutilized Comment: 4725 sq. ft., most recent use—storage, off-site use only North Carolina Bldg. 1323 Fort Bragg Hammond Hills Housing Area Ft. Bragg Co: NC 28310- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630072 Status: Unutilized Comment: 568,876 sq. ft., most recent use—residential, off-site use only Texas Bldg. 00738 Fort Hood Bell Co: TX 76544- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630073 Status: Excess Comment: 6400 sq. ft., most recent use—storage, off-site use only Virginia 142.67 acres/7 Bldgs. Pepermeir Hill Road U.S. Geological Survey Corbin Co: VA 22446- Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630020 Status: Excess Comment: various sq. ft., most recent use—research/development/calibration lab/test measuring circuit GSA Number : 4-I-VA-0748 Wisconsin Bldgs. 02128, 02129 Fort McCoy Monroe Co: WI 54656- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630074 Status: Underutilized Comment: 9000 sq. ft. each, presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—storage Bldg. 02130 Fort McCoy Monroe Co: WI 54656- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630075 Status: Underutilized Comment: 3600 sq. ft., presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—commissary Bldgs. 02131, 02133 Fort McCoy Monroe Co: WI 54656- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630076 Status: Underutilized Comment: 9000 sq. ft. each, presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—storage Bldgs. 02134, 02135 Fort McCoy Monroe Co: WI 54656- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630077 Status: Underutilized Comment: 9000 sq. ft. each, presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—storage Bldg. 02139 Fort McCoy Monroe Co: WI 54656- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630078 Status: Underutilized Comment: 9360 sq. ft., presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—storage Bldg. 02150 Fort McCoy Monroe Co: WI 54656- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630079 Status: Underutilized Comment: 8448 sq. ft., presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—storage Bldg. 02153 Fort McCoy Monroe Co: WI 54656- Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200630080 Status: Underutilized Comment: 4000 sq. ft., presence of asbestos/lead paint, most recent use—storage Unsuitable Properties Buildings (by State) Alaska Courthouse Parking Lot 7th Avenue Anchorage Co: AK Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630013 Status: Underutilized Reason: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material GSA Number : 9-G-AK-0798 Arizona Quarters 102, 103 Lake Mead Nat. Rec. Bullhead Co: Mohave, AZ 86429- Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630007 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Colorado Tract 04-120 Rocky Mtn. National Park Estes Park Co: Larimer, CO 80517- Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630008 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Tract 6-121 McGraw Ranch Larimer Co: CO 80517- Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630009 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Indiana Bldgs. 157, 158 Naval Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630046 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 161, 164, 167 Naval Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630047 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 173 Naval Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630048 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 2179 Naval Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630049 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 2501, 2502, 2503 Naval Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630050 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 2715 Naval Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630051 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 159 Navy Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640002 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 162, 163 Navy Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640003 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 166, 168 Navy Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640004 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 171, 172 Navy Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640005 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 2193 Navy Support Activity Crane Co: Martin, IN 47522- Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640006 Status: Unutilized Reason: Extensive deterioration Maryland Bldg. 193 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630034 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 232 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD - Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630035 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 377, 379 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD - Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630036 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 500, 501 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD - Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630037 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 648 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD - Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630038 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 883, 885 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630039 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 1053 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630040 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 1343 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630041 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 1932 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630042 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 2075 Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head Co: MD Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630043 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration New Jersey NIKE Site PH58 Paulsboro Road Woolwich Township Co: NJ 08085— Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200630017 Status: Excess Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Extensive deterioration GSA Number : 1-G-NJ-0538 New York Tract 101-01 Eleanor Roosevelt Natl Historic Site Hyde Park Co: Dutchess, NY 12578— Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630010 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration South Carolina Bldgs. 108-1P, 108-2P Savannah River Site Aiken Co: SC 29802— Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200630007 Status: Unutilized Reason: Secured Area Bldg. 1148 Naval Weapons Station Goose Creek Co: Berkeley, SC 29445— Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630044 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Tennessee 6 Bldgs. Navy Support Activity Millington Co: TN Location: N26A, 1550, 1550A, 1550C, 1550D, 1550E Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640001 Status: Excess Reason: Secured Area Texas Bldgs. 11-54, 11-54A Zone 11 Plantex Plant Amarillo Co: Carson, TX 79120— Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200630008 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Secured Area Bldg. 12-002B Zone 12 Pantex Plant Amarillo Co: Carson, TX 79120— Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200630009 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Secured Area 4 Bldgs. 12-003, 12-R-003, 12-003L Zone 12, Pantex Plant Amarillo Co: Carson, TX 79120— Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200630010 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Secured Area Bldg. 12-014 Zone 12 Pantex Plant Amarillo Co: Carson, TX 79120— Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200630011 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Secured Area Bldg. 12-24E Zone 12 Pantex Plant Amarillo Co: Carson, TX 79120— Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200630012 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Secured Area Washington Bldg. 119 Yakima Project Yakima Co: WA 98901— Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630017 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 128, 129 Yakima Project Yakima Co: WA 98901— Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200630018 Status: Excess Reason: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 1032 Naval Base Bangor Tower Site Silverdale Co: WA 98315— Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200630045 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Secured Area Bldg. 71 Naval Magazine Port Hadlock Co: Jefferson, WA 98339-9723 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640007 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 82, 83 Naval Magazine Port Hadlock Co: Jefferson, WA 98339-9723 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640008 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 168, 188 Naval Magazine Port Hadlock Co: Jefferson, WA 98339-9723 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640009 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Extensive deterioration Bldg. 729 Naval Magazine Port Hadlock Co: Jefferson, WA 98339-9723 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640010 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 910, 921 Naval Magazine Port Hadlock Co: Jefferson, WA 98339-9723 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640011 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Extensive deterioration [FR Doc. E6-16860 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Endangered Species The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). *Applicant:* Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Cincinnati, OH, PRT-130454. The applicant requests a permit to import one female Sumatran rhinoceros ( *Dicerorhinus sumatrensis* ) from the Sumatran Rhino Sanctuary, Sumatra, Indonesia for the purpose of enhancement of the species through captive propagation. *Applicant:* Robert A. McCleskey, Midland, TX, PRT-130521. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Walter P. Mays, Jr., Zanesfield, OH, PRT-131157. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Patricia A. Winger, Spring, TX, PRT-132159. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Hugh V. Sanderson, Hattiesburg, MS, PRT-131586. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* David J. Merkel, Dripping Spring, TX, PRT-132412. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Michael P. Cummings, Midland, TX, PRT-131525. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Martin A. White, Mandan, ND, PRT-132434. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophies of two male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Shane A. Chancellor, Evansville, IN, PRT-132478. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Sondra G. Chancellor, Evansville, IN, PRT-132481. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Thomas H. Shaffer, Stockton, CA, PRT-132487 MRM. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Gregory E. Schubert, Marietta, GA, PRT-132818. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. *Applicant:* Loyd D. Keith, Jr., Madison, TN, PRT-133293. The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( *Damaliscus pygargus pygargus* ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. *Applicant:* Alfred E. Baldwin, Newport Beach, CA, PRT-130446. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* James R. Bland, III, Carrollton, GA, PRT-130520. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Bradford T. Black, North Canton, OH, PRT-130727. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* John J. Meldrum, Metamora, MI, PRT-132536. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Mark Gutsmiedl, Larson, WI, PRT-132685. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Hartwell N. Riser, Jr., Columbia, LA, PRT-132483. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Dennis R. Leistico, Elk River, MN, PRT-134833. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Norwegian Bay polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* Richard H. Gebhard, Laguna Beach, CA, PRT-133772. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. Dated: September 22, 2006. Michael S. Moore, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E6-17026 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Post-Delisting Monitoring Results for the American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), 2003 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of document availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we” or “Service”) announces the availability of the results from 2003 monitoring data collected as part of the post-delisting monitoring plan for the American peregrine falcon ( *Falco peregrinus anatum* ). ADDRESSES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Ave, Portland, OR 97232. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Green, Migratory Birds and State Programs, at the above address, at *michael_green@fws.gov* , or at 503-231-6164 (phone) or 503-231-2019 (fax). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This report, titled “Monitoring Results for Breeding American Peregrine Falcons ( *Falco peregrinus anatum* ), 2003,” is published under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Technical Publications series as BTP-R1005-2006. The American peregrine falcon was removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants on August 25, 1999, due to its recovery (64 FR 46541). This report presents results from the first of 5 monitoring years, as described in the Service's “Monitoring Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon, A Species Recovered Under the Endangered Species Act.” A Notice of Availability for the monitoring plan was published on December 3, 2003 (68 FR 67697). Background The American peregrine falcon occurs throughout much of North America, from the subarctic boreal forests of Alaska and Canada south to Mexico. American peregrine falcons nest from central Alaska, central Yukon Territory, and northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, east to the Maritime Provinces, and south (excluding coastal areas north of the Columbia River in Washington and British Columbia) throughout western Canada and the United States to Baja California, Sonora, and the highlands of central Mexico. American peregrine falcons that nest in subarctic areas generally winter in South America. Those that nest at lower latitudes exhibit variable migratory behavior; some do not migrate. The American peregrine falcon declined precipitously in North America following World War II, a decline attributed largely to organochlorine pesticides, mainly DDT, applied in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. As a result. the American peregrine falcon was listed as endangered on June 2, 1970, under the precursor of the Endangered Species Act (35 FR 16047). Following restrictions on organochlorine pesticides in the United States and Canada, and implementation of various management actions, including the release of approximately 6000 captive-reared falcons, recovery goals were substantially exceeded in some areas. On August 25, 1999, the American peregrine falcon was removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (64 FR 46541). Section 4(g)(1) of the Endangered Species Act requires that, in cooperation with the States, we effectively monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants due to recovery. In keeping with that mandate, we developed a monitoring plan (“Monitoring Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon, A Species Recovered Under the Endangered Species Act”) to guide our monitoring efforts in cooperation with State resource agencies, recovery team members, independent scientists, biostatisticians, and other partners. Our plan calls for monitoring peregrine falcons five times at 3-year intervals beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015. This report presents the results of the first of these monitoring years. Over 300 individuals contributed their observations at 438 peregrine falcon territories across six monitoring regions in 2003. These included Federal and State agency personnel, members of tribes, non-governmental organizations, volunteers, and many others. Although we monitored only 36 of the targeted 96 territories in the Southwestern monitoring region, sufficient numbers of territories were surveyed in each of the other five monitoring regions to meet the statistical criteria described in the monitoring plan. Our estimates of territory occupancy, nest success, and productivity were above the target values that we set in the monitoring plan for those nesting parameters. Additional data collected by States and others indicate that there were 3,005 nesting pairs of American peregrine falcons in the United States, Canada, and Mexico in 2003, compared to approximately 1,750 pairs at the time of delisting. Additionally, 92 percent of pairs nest on natural substrates in all regions except the Midwestern/Northeastern region, where only 32 percent nest on natural substrates. Our estimates of the nesting parameters and the additional data from across the United States indicate that the peregrine falcon population is secure and vital. The next coordinated nationwide monitoring effort, scheduled for 2006, is underway. Copies of the 2003 monitoring results may be requested from Michael Green ( *see* contact information, above). This report is also available on the Internet at *http://www.fws.gov/endangered/recovery/peregrine/.* Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: October 6, 2006. Chris McKay, Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-17009 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Issuance of Permits AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals. SUMMARY: The following permits were issued. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. Endangered Marine Mammals and Marine Mammals Permit number Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register notice Permit issuance date 124511 Robert K. Chambers 71 FR 31197; June 1, 2006 September 19, 2006. 125553 James J. Stavola, Jr 71 FR 37602; June 30, 2006 September 19, 2006. 126300 Whiteford C. Blakeney 71 FR 37602; June 30, 2006 September 20, 2006. Dated: September 29, 2006. Monica Farris, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E6-17016 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Issuance of Permits AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for endangered species and marine mammals. SUMMARY: The following permits were issued. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that
(1)The application was filed in good faith,
(2)the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and
(3)the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Endangered Marine Mammals and Marine Mammals Permit number Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register notice Permit issuance date 041309 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management 71 FR 46183; August 9, 2005 September 13, 2006. 125097 Harold Landis 71 FR 35692; June 21, 2006 September 14, 2006. Dated: September 22, 2006. Michael S. Moore, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E6-17018 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications for permit. SUMMARY: The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. DATES: Written data, comments or requests must be received by November 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Marine Mammals The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director. *Applicant:* Kevin T. Klumper, Chehalis, WA, PRT-130149. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Norwegian Bay polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. *Applicant:* William I. Morgan, Jr., Vacaville, CA, PRT-130438. The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( *Ursus maritimus* ) sport hunted from the Norwegian Bay polar bear population in Canada for personal, noncommercial use. Dated: September 29, 2006. Monica Farris, Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority. [FR Doc. E6-17019 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [NV-058-06-5865-DT] Notice of Availability of Record of Decision for the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan
(RMP)and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Nevada AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. *Cooperating Agencies:* Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, City of Henderson, City of Boulder City, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe. ACTION: Notice of Availability, Record of Decision. SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)policies, and the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 [Public Law 107-282], the BLM announces the availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD)for the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area
(NCA)RMP located in Clark County, Nevada. The Nevada State Director has approved the RMP ROD, which becomes effective immediately. ADDRESSES: The RMP ROD and other associated documents or background information may be viewed and downloaded in .PDF format at *http://www.nv.blm.gov/vegas/sloan* . Copies of the Sloan Canyon NCA RMP ROD are available upon request from the Las Vegas Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130-2301. Reference copies are available for review during regular business hours at the following locations: BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd, Reno, NV 89502; Paseo Verde Library, 280 S. Green Valley Parkway, Henderson, NV 89012; Boulder City Library, 701 Adams Blvd, Boulder City, NV 89005; North Las Vegas Library, 2300 Civic Center Dr., North Las Vegas, NV 89130; and Summerlin Library, 1771 Inner Circle Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information visit the Web site *http://www.nv.blm.gov/vegas/sloan* or contact: Manager, Sloan Canyon NCA, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130-2301; Telephone
(702)515-5000; and E-mail *Sloan_planning@nv.blm.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In November 2002 Congress designated the Sloan Canyon NCA to preserve and protect a portion of southern Nevada's Mojave Desert as a permanent asset for future generations. The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 required the BLM to develop a plan for the appropriate use and management of the Sloan Canyon NCA and the North McCullough Wilderness. The RMP ROD was developed with broad public and stakeholder participation through a 3-year collaborative planning process. This RMP ROD addresses management on approximately 48,000 acres of public land within the NCA, including the 14,000 acre North McCullough Wilderness. The RMP ROD contains both land use planning decisions and implementing decisions to provide planning structure to facilitate the management of the Sloan Canyon NCA. Major resources and activities addressed in the RMP ROD include: recreation; the North McCullough Wilderness; cultural resources; interpretation; facilities; lands and realty; transportation; vegetation management; and wildlife management. The approved RMP is essentially the same as Alternative C in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, published in October 2005. BLM received four protests to the Proposed RMP/EIS. After careful consideration of all points raised in those protests, the BLM Director concluded that the responsible planning team and decision-makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and pertinent resource considerations in developing the proposed plan. No inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies or programs were identified during the Governor's consistency review of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. As a result, only minor editorial modifications were made in preparing the RMP/ROD. Dated: June 28, 2006. Juan Palma, Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office. [FR Doc. E6-16938 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ID-300-1020-PH] Notice of Public Meeting, Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council Meeting AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Public Meetings. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)Idaho Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below. DATES: The RAC will next meet in Idaho Falls, Idaho on November 15 and 16, 2006. Day one of the meeting will be an orientation session aimed at training new members. An overview of each of the Idaho Falls District's four field offices will be presented, along with Annual Rangeland Health training (scheduled). The second day will include updates of ongoing issues, including the Challis Field Office Travel Management Plan. The meeting will also consider proposed fee increases on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest, as provided by the Recreation Enhancement Act. Finally, the RAC will set its quarterly meeting schedule for 2007. Other topics will be scheduled as appropriate. All meetings are open to the public. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM Idaho Falls District (IFD), which covers eastern Idaho. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Howell, RAC Coordinator, Idaho Falls District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401. Telephone
(208)524-7559. E-mail: *David_Howell@blm.gov* . Dated: October 6, 2006. David Howell, RAC Coordinator, Public Affairs Specialist. [FR Doc. E6-17001 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO-200-0777-XZ-241A] Notice of Meeting, Front Range Resource Advisory Council (Colorado) AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)Front Range Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below. DATES: The meeting will be held November 15, 2006 from 9:15 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Holy Cross Abbey Community Center, 2951 E. Highway 50, Canon City, Colorado 81212. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Smith,
(719)269-8500. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15 member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Royal Gorge Field Office and San Luis Valley, Colorado. Planned agenda topics include: Manager updates on current land management issues; update on the draft Colorado Recreation Strategy Communication Plan and a discussion on the Arkansas River Travel Management Plan. All meetings are open to the public. The public is encouraged to make oral comments to the Councils at 9:30 a.m. or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Summary minutes for the Council Meeting will be maintained in the Royal Gorge Field Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty
(30)days following the meeting. Meeting Minutes and agenda (10 days prior to each meeting) are also available at: *www.blm.gov/rac/co/frrac/co_fr.htm.* Dated: October 6, 2006. Roy L. Masinton, Royal Gorge Field Manager. [FR Doc. E6-17002 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ID-200-1120-PH] Notice of November Resource Advisory Council Meeting To Be Held in Twin Falls District, ID AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. SUMMARY: This notice announces the intent to hold a Resource Advisory Council
(RAC)meeting in the Twin Falls District of Idaho on Tuesday, November 28, 2006. The meeting will be held at the Red Lion Canyon Springs Hotel, 1357 Blue Lakes Boulevard, in Twin Falls, Idaho. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council consists of the standard fifteen members residing throughout south central Idaho. Meeting agenda items will include updates on sub-committee efforts, welcome to new members, continued prioritization of tasks for the upcoming year and more. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sky Buffat, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 400 West F Street, Shoshone, Idaho, 83352,
(208)732-7307. Dated: October 2, 2006. Howard Hedrick, Twin Falls District Manager. [FR Doc. E6-17008 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-100-1430-ES; WYW-163849] Notice of Realty Action; Recreation and Public Purposes Act Classification; Wyoming AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice; correction. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management published a notice in the **Federal Register** of August 23, 2006, concerning the classification for lease or conveyance of three parcels of public land to Sublette County. The notice contained an incorrect legal description. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Wadsworth, Realty Specialist, at the address above or at 307-367-5341. CORRECTION: In the **Federal Register** of August 23, 2006, in FR Doc. E6-13927, on page 49472, in the second column, first paragraph under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION , correct the legal description to read: *WYW-163849—Pinedale, WY—Golf Course to be classified for lease/conveyance:* Sixth Principal Meridian, Sublette County, Wyoming T. 33 N., R. 109 W., Sec. 5, SW 1/4 , SW 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 6, E 1/2 SE 1/4 . The land described contains 280 acres. Dated: October 3, 2006. Dennis R. Stenger, Field Manager. [FR Doc. E6-16936 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 04-16] T. Young Associates, Inc.; Revocation of Registration; Introduction and Procedural History On December 17, 2003, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to T. Young Associates of Hermitage, Tennessee (Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, 004395TSY, as a distributor of List I chemicals, and to deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of the registration, on the ground that Respondent's registration is inconsistent with the public interest as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. § 823(h). *See* 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4). The Show Cause Order alleged in substance that on July 31, 2001, Respondent applied for a modification of its registration as a List I chemical distributor requesting registration to handle and distribute phenylpropanolamine, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine at a new location. *See* Show Cause Order at 2. The Show Cause Order further alleged that Respondent sells primarily “gray market products” to convenience stores and gas stations, that Respondent's owner had informed DEA Diversion Investigators
(DIs)that List I chemical products amounted to approximately nine percent of his total sales, and that some of the manufacturers of the products sold by Respondent have received warning letters from DEA because the products were found during law enforcement seizures of clandestine laboratories. *See id.* The Show Cause Order further alleged that Tennessee led DEA's southeast region in the number of illicit methamphetamine laboratory seizures, that most illegal methamphetamine is produced locally, and that methamphetamine production continues unabated. *See id.* at 2-3. The Show Cause Order further alleged that DEA had engaged an expert in the field of retail marketing and statistics who had studied the purchases of List I chemical products by hundreds of Tennessee retailers and concluded that these stores were purchasing these products in amounts that were far in excess of legitimate demand. *See id.* at 4. The Show Cause Order alleged that small illicit laboratories procure the precursor chemicals required to manufacture methamphetamine from non-traditional retailers such as gas stations and small retail markets and that some of these retailers use multiple distributors to mask their acquisition of large amounts of listed chemicals. * See id.* Respondent, through its counsel, requested a hearing. The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ)Mary Ellen Bittner, who conducted a hearing in Nashville, Tennessee, on September 28 and 29, 2004. At the hearing, both parties called witnesses to testify and introduced documentary evidence. Following the hearing, but before the record was closed, the Government introduced into evidence the affidavit of its expert witness, Mr. Jonathan Robbin. Respondent then submitted into evidence his own affidavit addressing the issues raised in the Robbin affidavit, as well as several other exhibits. Following the closing of the record, both parties submitted post-hearing briefs. On October 28, 2005, the ALJ submitted her decision recommending that Respondent's registration be revoked. Neither party filed exceptions. The record was then transmitted to me for final agency action. Having considered the record as a whole, I hereby issue this decision and final order. I adopt the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law except as expressly noted herein. For the reasons set forth below, I concur with the ALJ's recommendation that Respondent's registration be revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of Respondent's registration be denied. Findings Respondent is a corporation whose shares are owned entirely by Mr. Roy T. Young. Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration, 004395TSY, which authorizes it to distribute the List I chemicals phenylpropanolamine, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. 1 Respondent, which is located in Hermitage, Tennessee, sells a variety of general merchandise and nonfood items such as ball caps, sunglasses, cigarette lighters, novelty items and licensed athletic wear to predominately gas stations and convenience stores in eastern and middle Tennessee. Mr. Young testified that Respondent “did a couple of million dollars a year by the early 2000s.” Tr. 233. Mr. Young further testified that ephedrine was “about nine or ten percent of my sales in the chain stores.” *Id.* at 290. Mr. Young also testified that he had decided not to carry pseudoephedrine although he did sell it “from time to time” to certain customers. *Id.* at 240. 1 There is no evidence in the record that Respondent had distributed phenylpropanolamine. Methamphetamine and the Market for List I Chemicals While both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine have therapeutic uses, 2 they are also precursor chemicals that are regulated by the Controlled Substances Act. *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(34). Moreover, these chemicals are easily extracted from legal and what typically were over-the-counter products 3 and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. *See* 21 CFR 1308.12(d). 2 According to the affidavit of Mr. Douglas A. Snyder, a Drug Science Officer within the Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section in the Office of Diversion Control, under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's provisions pertaining to over-the-counter
(OTC)products, ephedrine is lawfully marketed as a bronchodilator used to treat asthma. Govt. Exh. 27, at 3-4. Pseudoephedrine is lawfully marketed under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's OTC provisions as a decongestant. *See id.* at 4. 3 In response to the methamphetamine epidemic, many States have enacted legislation making pseudoephedrine a Schedule V drug under State controlled substances acts. Methamphetamine “is a powerful and addictive central nervous system stimulant.” *D & S Sales* , 71 FR 37607, 37608 (2006). The illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to this country. Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed numerous lives and families and has ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used in producing the drug, illicit methamphetamine laboratories cause serious environmental harms. According to the testimony of DEA Special Agent Guy Hargreaves, Staff Coordinator for the DEA Methamphetamine Program at DEA Headquarters, in 1999 there were 101 explosions and at least 64 fires at clandestine labs throughout the United States. *See* Gov. Exh. 26, at 9. Moreover, the annual cost to government agencies to clean up methamphetamine labs is “millions of dollars.” *Id.* at 10. 4 4 According to the Suspicious Order Task Force, as of 1998 the cost to clean up a small boxed lab site was $30,000. *See* Gov. Exh. 28, at 18. The problem of methamphetamine abuse is especially serious in Tennessee. According to the record, the number of law enforcement seizures of clandestine laboratories in Tennessee rose from 106 in 1999 to “over 700 labs” in 2003. *See* ALJ at 8, Tr. at 14. Moreover, according to a DEA Special Agent, as of September 28, 2004 (the date of the hearing), there had been close to 700 seizures in Tennessee already that year. 5 Tr. at 14. 5 As noted in *Gregg Brothers Wholesale Co., Inc.* , 71 FR 59830 (2006), in 2004, law enforcement agencies seized 939 clandestine labs in Tennessee. A DEA Special Agent who serves in the Nashville office as a clandestine lab enforcement agent testified that, based on his observations of products found at clandestine lab sites, as well as interviews he had conducted with various defendants, there was a trend of methamphetamine cooks obtaining List I chemicals from “smaller gas stations and convenience stores.” *Id.* at 12. According to the Special Agent, he had been told in the interviews that meth. cooks were “able to buy cases, half cases, and such out the back door of” convenience stores and gas stations. *Id.* The Special Agent further testified that some meth. cooks drive around to different stores with four or five different addicts who go into several stores in different cities and purchase sub-threshold quantities of List I chemicals. The Government submitted into evidence the affidavit of Mark J. Rubbins, a Diversion Investigator who was then assigned as Chief of the Domestic Chemical Control Unit, Office of Diversion Control, DEA Headquarters. According to DI Rubbins, DEA has determined that there is both a traditional and non-traditional market for List I chemical products. *See* Gov. Exh. 44, at 5. The traditional market is characterized by a short chain of distribution. In this market, manufacturers either sell directly to large chains of grocery stores (such as Giant and Safeway), pharmacies (such as Rite Aid and CVS), and other larger retailers (such as Wal-Mart), or they sell to large wholesalers (such as Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource). *See id.* at 5-6. Furthermore, List I chemical products sold in this market are typically of lower strength and lower count sizes such as 30 mg. pseudoephedrine tablets in small, blister pack sizes of six, twelve, twenty-four and sometimes forty-eight count. *See id.* at 5. In contrast, products sold in the non-traditional market pass through multiple layers of distribution and are sold by such establishments as gas stations, small convenience stores, liquor stores, headshops, beauty parlors, and video stores. *See id.* at 6. Moreover, the products are typically stronger than those found in the traditional market and include 60 mg. pseudoephedrine tablets which are sold in larger package sizes such as 60, 100, or 120 count bottle sizes. DI Rubbins further stated that non-traditional retailers tend to knowingly sell large quantities of List I chemical products to “smurfers,” individuals who work for methamphetamine traffickers and attempt to buy out a store's entire stock of List I chemical products by going to the store at different times or on different days. *See id.* at 6-7. DI Rubbins stated that because of increased DEA enforcement efforts involving pseudoephedrine products, methamphetamine traffickers have increasingly gone back to using combination ephedrine products. *See id.* at 10. DI Rubbins further stated that in 2002, he contacted the major manufacturers of combination ephedrine/guaifenesin products and determined that sales for these products amounted to only one-tenth of the market for legitimate single-entity pseudoephedrine products. *See id.* According to DI Rubbins, the names of products that are popular with methamphetamine traffickers are “MiniThin” and “Mini Twin,” which each contain 60 mg. pseudoephedrine, and “Max Brand” and “Mini Two Way,” which are combination ephedrine products. *See id.* at 12. Mr. Rubbins further stated that these brands “have been disproportionately represented in clandestine lab seizures around the United States involving listed chemical products.” *Id.* at 13. The Government also submitted the affidavit of John Uncapher, who was then assigned as a Staff Coordinator with the Domestic Operations Division at DEA Headquarters. Mr. Uncapher's staff was responsible for the DEA Warning Letter program. *See* Gov. Exh. 42, at 3. Under this program, DEA collects information regarding List I chemicals products that have been found at clandestine lab sites and identifies the manufacturers of these products. *See id.* The Government entered into evidence a list of 35 warning letters issued to PDK Laboratories, the manufacturer of Max Brand, a product which Respondent distributes. *See* Gov. Exh. 19. According to this exhibit, between January 5, 1999, and September 26, 2002, approximately 1.67 million pseudoephedrine tablets and 107,250 combination ephedrine tables manufactured by this firm were found in numerous seizures of clandestine laboratories throughout the United States including Tennessee. The Government also introduced into evidence a list of 17 warning letters issued to BDI because their products, which Respondent also distributed, were found during seizures of clandestine laboratories. *See* Gov. Exh. 20. The Government submitted into evidence the declaration of Jonathan Robbin, an expert in statistical analysis of demographic, economic, geographic and survey data. Based on his study of the latest available United States Economic Census of Retail Trade, Mr. Robbin concluded that “over 97% of all sales of non-prescription drug products occur in drug stores and pharmacies, supermarkets, large discount merchandisers and electronic shopping and mail order houses.” Gov. Exh. 70, at 4. Moreover, sales of non-prescription drugs by convenience stores (including both those that sell and do not sell gasoline), “account for only 2.2% of the overall sales of all convenience stores that handle the line and only 0.7% of the total sales of all convenience stores.” *Id.* Mr. Robbin further testified that based on his study of U.S. Government Economic Census Data, information obtained from the National Association of Convenience Stores, and commercially available point of sale transaction data, he constructed a model of the traditional market for retail sales of pseudoephedrine. *See id.* at 5. According to Mr. Robbin, sales of pseudoephedrine account for “only about 2.6%” of the sales of health and beauty care products in convenience stores and only “0.05% of total in-store (non-gasoline) sales.” *Id.* Mr. Robbin testified that “the normal expected retail sale of pseudoephedrine
(Hcl)tablets in a convenience store may range between $0 and $40 per month, with an average of $20.60 per month.” *Id.* at 7. Mr. Robbin also testified that “the expected sale of ephedrine
(Hcl)tablets in a convenience store ranges between $0 and $25, with an average of $12.58.” *Id.* at 7-8. Mr. Robbin further testified that a monthly retail sale of $40 of ephedrine or $60 of pseudoephedrine would “occur less than one in 1,000 times in random sampling.” *Id.* Moreover, a monthly retail sale of $60 of ephedrine or $100 in pseudoephedrine would “occur about once in a million times in random sampling.” *Id.* The Investigation of Respondent Respondent's initial registered location was 1319 Central Court, Hermitage, Tennessee. On July 19, 2001, Mr. Young wrote a letter to DEA's Nashville office informing it that Respondent had relocated its warehouse to 1320 Central Court, Hermitage, Tennessee, and requesting that DEA issue a registration for the new address. *See* Gov. Exh. 3. According to Mr. Young's testimony, Respondent had leased both the 1319 and 1320 locations for some period. When Respondent's lease for the 1319 location came up for renewal, Mr. Young decided to terminate it and vacate the premises as he was already leasing the 1320 space and had leased another premises (4706 Lebanon Pike) which he was using for an office and retail store. *See* Tr. 242-43. Mr. Young did not notify DEA, however, until after Respondent moved out of its then registered location. *Id.* at 244-45. Because DEA's regulations provide that a “request for modification shall be handled in the same manner as an application for registration,” 21 CFR 1309.61, on August 7, 2001, two DIs visited Respondent's 1320 Central Court facility to conduct an investigation. ALJ at 15. The DIs inspected the facility and obtained from Respondent lists of both its customers and suppliers. The DIs found that the List I chemical products were securely stored in a locked area of the warehouse. *See id.* The DIs told Mr. Young that they would conduct an accountability audit. The DIs conducted an inventory of all List I chemical products on hand and obtained Mr. Young's signature on their inventory report. Tr. 39-40. The DIs also told Mr. Young that they needed to know what inventory was on Respondent's delivery trucks. *Id.* at 40. One of the DIs could not recall, however, whether Mr. Young had said there were List I chemical products on the trucks. *Id.* at 41. The DI later testified that Mr. Young had never gotten back to them regarding List I chemicals that may have been on the trucks. *Id.* at 131. In his testimony, Mr. Young confirmed that the DIs had asked him about “the truck inventory” and whether there were any “inventories on the truck.” *Id.* at 254. The DIs then requested the invoices necessary to conduct an accountability audit. Mr. Young told the DIs that the records were not kept at the warehouse but were at his office, which was located at 4706 Lebanon Pike. 6 The DIs then went to the office. *Id.* at 37. 6 The DIs further informed Mr. Young that under Federal regulations, records of purchases over certain amounts must be maintained at the registered location. *See* Tr. 37-38. The record contains an invoice documenting a purchase from PDK Laboratories of 720 bottles containing 60 tablets of 2 way ephedrine, a product that contains 25 mg. of ephedrine hydrochloride per tablet. *See* Gov. Exh. 6. Respondent's purchase of this product did not, however, exceed the one kilogram threshold. *See* 21 CFR 1310.04(f)(1); Gov. Exh. 23. The DI proceeded to perform a 30 day accountability audit 7 of three of the products—Ephedrine Plus 60 tablet bottles, Max Brand 60 tablet bottles, and Nyquil two tablet packets. Because there was no beginning inventory, the DIs assigned a value of zero for each of the products. *Id.* at 47. The DIs then examined both the hard copy purchase invoices from Respondent's suppliers and Respondent's hard copy sales records. 8 *Id.* at 51, 147. The audit determined that there were overages in the amount of 3,131 Ephedrine Plus bottles and 600 NyQuil packets. Gov. Exh. 12. The audit also found a shortage of 26 bottles of Max Brand Ephedrine. *Id.* 7 The audit actually covered the period from July 1, 2001, through August 7, 2001. *See* Gov. Exh. 12. 8 There was a factual dispute as to whether Respondent informed the DIs as to the existence of his computerized records. The ALJ found that “whatever computerized records Respondent maintained showed only the dollar amount of the sale but not the products sold; this latter information was shown only on hard copy invoices.” ALJ at 15; *see also* Tr. at 252. Because the accountability audit was based on the quantity and not dollar amount of the products, the dispute is immaterial. The ALJ found that “[t]he investigators did not contact Mr. Young to discuss the audit results” and noted that “Mr. Young testified that he was not aware of the audit results until three years after the August 7, 2001 visit.” ALJ at 17. 9 The ALJ further found that Mr. Young then had his employees go back through his records and recalculate Respondent's sales; the employees found overages. *See id.; see also* Tr. 257-58. 9 There is, however, conflicting testimony by Mr. Young that when the DIs were through with the audit, “we sat down and had a short meeting out front, then a reference was made to a large overage in one category” and I told the DIs “you can't honestly be over.” Tr. at 253. In October 2001, DEA modified Respondent's registration by changing the address of his registered location to 1320 Central Court. The DI testified that he had granted the modification because of the financial hardship Mr. Young was undergoing in maintaining three separate premises. Tr. at 33. Approximately a year after the on-site inspection, one of the DIs conducted verification visits of three of Respondent's customers. ALJ at 18. The manager at each location verified that the store was a customer of Respondent; each of the managers also told the DI that they used more than one supplier of List I chemicals. *See id.* At two of the stores, the managers told the DI that they were attempting to identify customers who they believed were purchasing List I chemical products for illicit use and report them to law enforcement authorities. *See id.* On September 19, 2003, Mr. Young requested another modification of the registration to change both the name on the registration and the address of its registered location to 4706 Lebanon Pike. On December 17, 2003, however, the instant Show Cause Order was issued. *See* ALJ at 17. On February 20, 2004, two DIs and a Special Agent visited Respondent at its Lebanon Pike location to deliver a letter from Howard Davis, the Diversion Program Manager for DEA's Atlanta Field Division. The letter instructed Respondent that he could not store listed chemicals at his new proposed location until DEA approved the change. Gov. Exh. 46. The letter further explained that DEA would not approve any modification until the Order to Show Cause was resolved. *Id.* During the visit, Mr. Young told one of the DIs that no List I chemicals were being stored at the Lebanon Pike location. However, during the visit, one of the DIs found a display rack containing 24 bottles and 5 packets of ephedrine products on a shelf in the office. ALJ at 17. Because the products were at a non-registered location, the DI immediately seized them. *Id.* Mr. Young testified that the products were at the Lebanon Pike location because his son had taken them there to photograph them for a brochure to be used in marketing them to Respondent's customers. Tr. 277. Mr. Young testified that after the pictures were taken the products should have been immediately returned to the truck. *Id.* at 278. As part of DEA's investigation, one of the DIs obtained from Respondent's suppliers copies of invoices documenting its purchases of List I chemical products from January 2003 through July 2004. Tr. at 166-75. According to the invoices from one supplier, CB Distributors, Respondent purchased 5,616 bottles of Rapid Action (60 tablet count), 576 bottles of Rapid Action (48 tablet count), 10,850 packets of Rapid Action (12 tablet count), 3,168 bottles of Mini Two Way (60 tablet count), 576 bottles of Mini Two Way (48 tablet count), 3,456 packets of Mini Two Way (6 tablet count), 15,708 bottles of Max Brand 2-Way (60 tablet count), 17,280 packets of Max Brand 2-Way (6 tablet count), and 1,584 bottles of Twin Tabs (60 tablet count). ALJ at 18. The Government also introduced two invoices it had received from another of Respondent's suppliers, Sasser Distributing. The invoices show that on July 27, 2004, Respondent purchased 288 bottles of ephedrine products (60 tablet count); the next day, Respondent purchased another 144 bottles of Biotek Ephedrine (48 tablet count), as well as an additional amount of Ephedrine Plus packets (6 tablet count). See Gov. Exhs. 52-53. 10 10 During the August 2001 on-site inspection, the DIs received a supplier list from Mr. Young. Tr. 56. One of the DIs determined that at least two of Respondent's suppliers had received warning letters from DEA. ALJ at 18. As stated above, the Government entered into evidence the affidavit of Jonathan Robbin. According to the affidavit, DEA provided Mr. Robbin with a list of 801 wholesale transactions involving combination ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products made by Respondent to 97 Tennessee convenience stores between January 27, 2003, and November 22, 2004. Gov. Exh. 70, at 12. The affidavit further stated that during this period Respondent sold 17,271 bottles, each containing 60 tablets, and 24,520 packages, each containing six tablets, of combination ephedrine products. *See id.* The bottles held a total of 1,036,260 tablets and the packets held a total of 147,120 tablets. *Id.* Respondent also sold to 31 convenience stores, 1,435 bottles, each containing 60 tablets of Max Brand 30 mg. pseudoephedrine, for a total of 86,100 tablets of pseudoephedrine products. *Id.* Using this data, Mr. Robbin calculated each store's implied average monthly retail sales and compared that to the normal expected retail sales discussed above. 11 *See id.* at 13. According to Mr. Robbin, only one of the 97 stores was selling near the normal expected sales range at 2.8 times expectation. *Id.* at 15. The next lowest store was selling over 20 times the expected sales range. *Id.* Mr. Robbin explained that in random sampling, sales over 20 times expectation “could occur only about three times in a billion raised to the fifth power.” *Id.* Mr. Robbin further explained that “[t]he probability of an index equal to or greater than 20 is so small as to be near impossibility.” *Id.* at 16. Finally, Mr. Robbin found that the top 94 stores had indexes over 25, the top 54 stores sold “over 100 times expectation,” and the top sixteen sold “over 300 times expectation.” *Id.* at 16. 11 Mr. Robbin's affidavit explains in detail his methodology, including the figure he used for the products' gross margin, to calculate the implied retail sales value of the products. Mr. Robbin explained that “[s]uch indexes are not possible in the normal commerce of these goods at ordinary convenience stores.” *Id.* According to Mr. Robbin, because the average convenience store serves 120,000 shoppers per year, if combination ephedrine products were being purchased by customers to treat asthma (the purpose for which the FDA has approved them), three million persons would have to shop at the store in a year to account for sales 25 times the expected amount. *Id.* Mr. Robbin further explained that while it was possible that a single customer could purchase a store's entire monthly inventory, this amount of product would supply the person with enough of the drug to treat an asthmatic condition at recommended doses for two and one-quarter years. *Id.* Mr. Robbin explained that “[i]t is difficult to imagine * * * what such a shopper would do with all of this material every month except to resell or use it as a precursor chemical in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine.” *Id.* at 16-17. Mr. Robbin thus concluded that Respondent “frequently sells combination ephedrine * * * and single ingredient pseudoephedrine * * * products to these stores in extraordinary excess of normal or traditional demand by ordinary convenience store shoppers.” *Id.* at 17. Mr. Young submitted an affidavit challenging the factual basis of Mr. Robbin's findings. According to Mr. Young, he supplied records covering only the 365 day period from September 2003 through August 2004. Resp. Exh. 19, at 1. Mr. Young further stated that “the total number of stores serviced fluctuate[d] and was not a hard and fast 97 stores as stated by Mr. Robbin.” *Id.* Mr. Young also challenged Mr. Robbin's findings as to the monthly expected sales range of combination ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products in convenience stores. Mr. Young asserted that according to the March 28, 2005 edition of Convenience Store News, “the average c-store sold $5,462 worth of cold and cough remedies in 2003.” *Id.* Mr. Young also asserted that according to the National Association of Convenience Stores State of the Industry Report for 2003, “the average c-store sold $2,980 of cough & cold remedies in 2003.” *Id.* at 2. Mr. Young thus contends that “[t]hese independent studies show average monthly sales of $250 to $450 per store per month for the c-store industry. This amount is 8 to 14 times greater than what Robin [sic] reports.” *Id.* Mr. Young further asserted that Respondent's average per store sales of combination ephedrine products “is within the norms for the sale of these products to convenience stores that we have experienced in the 14 years that we have been in business.” *Id.* at 4. In support of his affidavit, Mr. Young also submitted into evidence a spreadsheet showing its List I chemical sales from September 2003 through August 2004. *See* Resp. Exh. 20. According to the spreadsheet, Respondent sold a total of $68,568.11 of List I chemical products to an average of 54 stores per month. *See id.* The spreadsheet also indicates that Respondent's average sale per store, per month, was $105.81, and calculates that the average retail sale per store, per month, was $184.00. *Id.* The spreadsheet also indicates that Respondent's sales of traditional branded products (such as Advil, Aleve, Tylenol, Dayquil and Nyquil that contain pseudoephedrine) amounted to only $1,507 out of the total of $68,568, or approximately two percent of its List I chemical product sales. *Id.* Discussion Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act provides that a registration to distribute a List I chemical “may be suspended or revoked * * * upon a finding that the registrant * * * has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4). In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:
(1)Maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;
(2)compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;
(3)any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;
(4)any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and
(5)such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety. *Id.* § 823(h). • These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” *Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether a registration should be revoked or an application for a modification of a registration should be denied. *See, e.g., David M. Starr* , 71 FR 39367, 39368 (2006); *Energy Outlet* , 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DE* A, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). My analysis of the factors in this case compels the conclusion that Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor One—Maintenance of Effective Controls Against Diversion I acknowledge that Respondent provides effective security against the theft of listed chemicals. Accurate recordkeeping is, however, another important control against diversion. *See* 21 CFR 1309.71(b)(8). As to this system, the record clearly indicates that Respondent does not maintain effective controls against diversion. The accountability audit found that two of the products sold by Respondent had overages; the other product had a shortage. As the ALJ noted, the DIs used a zero opening inventory for each product because Respondent did not have an inventory. Using a zero opening inventory will result in an over-count if, in fact, a registrant had product on hand on the beginning date of the audit period. I note, however, that Mr. Young testified that he had his employees go back through his records and they too came up with overages. Tr. 257-58. The DIs also found that there was a shortage of 26 Max Brand 60 tablet bottles. This is especially significant because the audit covered only a short period of time (approximately five weeks). Moreover, if, in fact, Respondent had product on hand on the beginning date of the audit period, assigning an inventory of zero would result in an undercount of the shortage. I further note the testimony regarding whether there was inventory on the trucks. The ALJ noted that there was “somewhat inconsistent testimony about whether some List I chemicals were on” the trucks. *See* ALJ at 22. I am satisfied, however, that the DIs asked Respondent whether there were any List I chemicals on the trucks, *see* Tr. 40 and 254, and the fact remains that Respondent had no readily obtainable records showing the amount of inventory, if any, that was on the trucks. I therefore conclude that Respondent does not maintain effective controls against diversion. This factor thus supports a finding that Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor Two—Compliance with Applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws The record here demonstrates that Respondent committed several violations of Federal law and regulations. First, in July 2001, Respondent moved its List I chemicals from the 1319 Central Court building, which was its registered location, to the 1320 Central Court building, without obtaining approval from DEA. This action violated 21 U.S.C. § 822(e) and 21 CFR 1309.23(a). The ALJ also found that Respondent violated 21 CFR 1310.04(c), by storing List I chemical records at its Lebanon Pike location, which was not registered. *See* ALJ at 23. The record does not, however, support this finding. While 21 CFR 1310.04(c) requires that records be maintained “at the regulated person's place of business where the transaction occurred,” *id.* , the provision applies only to records which must be maintained under 21 CFR 1310.03. The only provision of that section which is pertinent here is the requirement that a regulated person keep a record of “a regulated transaction.” *Id.* § 1310.03(a). The regulations establish that the threshold for transactions in combination ephedrine products between wholesale distributors is one kilogram. *Id.* § 1310.04(f)(1)(ii); *see also* Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-237, § 401(f), 110 Stat. 3099, 3110
(1996)(adopting one kilogram threshold for regulated transactions in combination ephedrine products between wholesale distributors). The record contains only a single invoice conceivably documenting a regulated transaction between Respondent and one of its suppliers, PDK Laboratories, which had occurred at the time of the August 2001 inspection. This invoice indicates that on July 17, 2001, Respondent purchased 720 bottles containing 60 combination ephedrine tablets of 25 mg. ephedrine hydrochloride for a total of 43,200 tablets. *See* Gov. Exh. 6. This amount of product does not, however, exceed the one kilogram threshold because the hydrochloride constitutes approximately 18 percent of the chemical. As the Government's own exhibit demonstrates, the one kilogram threshold was equivalent to 48,826 combination ephedrine hcl tablets each containing 25 mg. ephedrine hcl. *See* Gov. Exh. 23. Because Respondent's purchase was more than 5,000 tablets under this amount, and there is no other evidence indicating that Respondent engaged in additional purchases during the month, the record does not establish that Respondent violated 21 CFR 1310.04(c). The record does, however, contain evidence establishing an additional violation of DEA regulations. During the February 2004 visit, the DIs found a display rack containing 24 bottles and 5 packets of combination ephedrine products at Respondent's Lebanon Pike store/office. Because Respondent's Lebanon Pike facility was not a registered location, Respondent's storage of the items at this location violated 21 U.S.C. § 822(e) and 21 CFR 1309.23(a). Most remarkably, Respondent committed this second violation after having been served with a Show Cause Order. Because Respondent committed multiple violations of the CSA's provisions, I conclude that Respondent's record of compliance with Federal law supports a finding that its continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor Three—The Record of Criminal Convictions The record contains no evidence that Respondent's owner, or any employee, has been convicted of an offense under laws related to either controlled substances or listed chemicals. I thus conclude that this factor supports a finding that Respondent's continued registration would not be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor Four—Past Experience in Distributing Listed Chemicals It is undisputed that Respondent has distributed List I chemical products for several years. That experience is, however, characterized by several violations of the CSA, as well as the inability of Respondent to provide an accurate accounting of its products. Moreover, as described under factor five below, there is substantial evidence in the record establishing that Respondent's products have been diverted. Accordingly, this factor supports a finding that Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Factor Five—Other Factors That Are Relevant to and Consistent With Public Health and Safety The record here establishes—as do numerous agency precedents—that there is a substantial nexus between the sale of certain non-traditional List I chemical products by non-traditional retailers and the diversion of these products into the illicit production of methamphetamine. *See, e.g., John Vanags* , 71 FR 39365, 39366 (2006); *Joey Enterprises,* 710 FR 76866, 76887 (2005); *TNT Distributors,* 70 FR 12729, 12730 (2005). Indeed, as noted recently in *TNT Distributors,* which also involved a Tennessee-based distributor of List I chemicals, “80 to 90 percent of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine being used [in Tennessee] to manufacture methamphetamine was being obtained from convenience stores.” 70 FR at 12730. Likewise in this case, there is undisputed testimony by a DEA Special Agent establishing that Tennessee-based methamphetamine cooks were purchasing large quantities of List I chemicals from smaller stores such as gas stations and convenience stores. Tr. at 12. Respondent's List I chemical sales were principally made to these types of retail establishments. Moreover, Respondent's Exhibit 20, which was a compilation of its sales of List I chemical products for the period September 2003 through August 2004, establishes that 98 percent of its sales were of non-traditional products including those of several manufacturers who have received warning letters from this agency because their products have frequently been found during seizures of clandestine methamphetamine labs. Respondent's Exhibit 20 further establishes that during this period, its average sale per store, per month, was $105.81, which would result in an average retail sale per store, per month, of $184. The ALJ found “persuasive” the affidavit of Mr. Robbin, the Government's expert witness who testified about the market for List I chemical products. ALJ at 23. Based on this evidence, the ALJ further concluded that “Respondent sold quantities of List I chemicals to convenience stores that far exceeded what the stores could reasonably be expected to sell to legitimate consumers.” *Id.* The ALJ also rejected Mr. Young's assertion in his post-hearing affidavit challenging Mr. Robbin's testimony as to the normal expected sales of combination ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products in convenience stores. *See id.* According to Mr. Young, the average convenience store sold between $250 and $450 per store, per month, an amount that “is 8 to 14 times greater than what Robin [sic] reports.” Resp. Exh. 19, at 2. As the ALJ observed, combination ephedrine products cannot be lawfully marketed over-the-counter as a cold and cough remedy and most of Respondent's sales were of this type of product. *See* ALJ at 23; 21 CFR 341.76. Moreover, products containing pseudoephedrine are only a subset of over-the-counter cold remedies. Respondent has produced no evidence establishing the percentage of over-the-counter cold remedies that include pseudoephedrine. I therefore credit Mr. Robbin's expert testimony as to the normal expected sales ranges of both ephedrine combination and pseudoephedrine products in non-traditional retailers. Mr. Young also challenged the factual basis for Mr. Robbin's findings that were based on data supplied to the latter by DEA. According to Mr. Robbin's affidavit, the findings that were specific to Respondent were based on “a list supplied to the DEA by T. Young of 801 wholesale transactions drawn from invoices to 97 convenience stores in Tennessee,” which covered the period from January 27, 2003, through November 22, 2004. Govt. Exh. 70, at 12. Mr. Robbin further stated that the “[d]ata given for each transaction included invoice date, store name, a product description and number of units sold.” *Id.* at 13. Mr. Young asserts, however, that he supplied DEA with “data from September 2003 thru August 2004,” that the data “was for 365 days, not for 665 and the total number of stores serviced fluctuate[d] and was not a hard and fast 97 stores as stated by Mr. Robbin.” Resp. Exh. 19, at 1. The ALJ did not address this factual dispute. Mr. Robbin's declaration makes clear that he did not review the actual invoices but rather data provided him by the Government. The Government did not, however, submit into evidence the list of transactions referred to by Mr. Robbin or the documentary evidence upon which the list was based. Moreover, while Mr. Young clearly provided data to DEA regarding Respondent's sales, *see* Resp. Exh. 19, at 1, the Government did not elicit any testimonial evidence from a witness with personal knowledge of how the list was obtained that establishes the scope of the data contained therein and refutes Respondent's contention. Accordingly, while I have credited Mr. Robbin's testimony regarding the expected sales ranges for combination ephedrine products and pseudoephedrine in non-traditional retailers, I do not adopt his findings that were based on Respondent's sales. Respondent's own evidence nonetheless demonstrates that it sold List I chemical products to non-traditional retailers in quantities that far exceeded legitimate demand and thus supports a finding that its products were diverted. During the period of September 2003 through August 2004, Respondent sold at wholesale prices an average of $ 105.81 to each store, each month. *See* Resp. Exh. 20, at 1. By Respondent's calculation, these List I chemical products produced an average retail sale of $184 per store, per month. *See id.* 12 12 While this figure is an average, it is unlikely that all stores bought right at the average. Some stores bought less, some bought more. Mr. Robbin found as a general matter that the expected retail sales range of ephedrine
(Hcl)in a convenience store is “between $0 and $25, with an average of $12.58.” Govt. Exh. 70 at 8. Mr. Robbin further found that a monthly retail sale of “$60 of ephedrine
(Hcl)tablets would be expected to occur about once in a million times in random sampling.” *Id.* By Respondent's own calculation, its customers' average monthly retail sale of ephedrine products was several times this amount. Moreover, this average was based on 54 stores over a twelve month period. It is thus even more improbable (than a one in a million probability) that these sales were to meet legitimate consumer demand for these products. I therefore conclude that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that a substantial portion of Respondent's products were diverted. *See D & S Sales* , 71 FR at 37611 (finding diversion occurred “[g]iven the near impossibility that * * * sales were the result of legitimate demand”); *Joy's Ideas,* 70 FR at 33198 (finding diversion occurred in the absence of “a plausible explanation in the record for this deviation from the expected norm”). That Respondent may have lacked any intent to divert or to sell to customers who were diverting to the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine ( *See* Resp. Br. 8) is irrelevant. “In determining the public interest,” Congress granted the Attorney General broad discretion to consider any other factor that is “relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety.” 21 U.S.C. § 823(h)(5). The statutory text imposes no requirement that the Government prove that a Registrant has acted with any particular *mens rea* . Indeed, the diversion of List I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine poses the same threat to public health and safety 13 whether a registrant sells the products knowing they will be diverted, sells them with a reckless disregard for the diversion, *See D & S Sales,* 71 FR at 37610-12, or sells them being totally unaware that the products were being diverted. *Cf. Joy's Ideas,* 70 FR at 33198 (revoking registration notwithstanding that distributor was “an unknowing and unintentional contributor to [the] methamphetamine problem.”). 14 13 In contrast to the provision pertaining to practitioners, the public interest determination applicable to List I chemical distributors does not limit the Attorney General's discretion to considering only those factors that “threaten public health and safety.” *Compare* 21 U.S.C. § 823(h)(5) *with id.* § 823(f)(5) (“such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with public health and safety”). The discussion in the text to the threat caused by the diversion of List I chemicals is used only to demonstrate the point that a registrant's *mens rea* is irrelevant. 14 Mr. Young asserts that “[t]he average per store sales of all ephedrine products to our stores is within the norms for the sale of these products to convenience stores that [his firm has] experienced in the 14 years that we have been in business,” and that these figures predate the methamphetamine problem. Resp. Ex. 19. at 4. The ALJ did not, however, credit this testimony. Moreover, Respondent did not produce any documentary evidence establishing its sales levels prior to the emergence of the methamphetamine epidemic in Tennessee. Thus, to the extent this testimony was offered to show that Respondent's more recent sales were consistent with the traditional and legitimate demand for List I chemical products and therefore rebut a finding that diversion occurred, I decline to credit it. To the extent the testimony was offered to show that Respondent did not intend that it products be diverted, it is irrelevant. Respondent points to the testimony of the DI who conducted verification visits of three of Respondent's customers. According to Respondent, this establishes that “respondent's customers conscientiously keep[] track of the materials sold and report[ ] any excess sales to local police.” Resp. Br. at 6. The record establishes, however, that the verification visits involved only a small fraction of Respondent's customers and thus this testimony does not refute the finding that its products were diverted. Respondent further asserts that following Tennessee's enactment of the Meth-Free Tennessee Act of 2005, as well as new laws in Georgia and Kentucky, revoking his registration would be “an arbitrary overreaching act” because the new laws restrict the products that can be sold by non-traditional retailers to those in gel-cap or liquid form and he is selling only these products. Resp. Br. 7. DEA is already aware, however, of several studies showing that methamphetamine can be produced from List I chemicals sold as liquid-filled gel caps and liquids. *See* Drug Enforcement Administration, *Microgram Bulletin* 96-97,102 (June 2005) (discussing studies conducted by Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory and McNeil Consumer and Specialty Pharmaceuticals). Moreover, experience has taught DEA that in the aftermath of every major piece of legislation addressing the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, traffickers have quickly found ways to circumvent the restrictions. Moreover, even assuming that Respondent will fully comply with the Tennessee and Kentucky laws, the Georgia statute would apparently not prohibit Respondent from selling combination ephedrine products to non-traditional retailers. *See* Georgia Code § 16-13-30.3 (allowing convenience stores to sell ephedrine products). Respondent would also be able to distribute products to non-traditional retailers in other States which have not imposed similar restrictions. Therefore, I conclude that factor five supports a finding that Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. In sum, Respondent has committed several violations of the CSA. *See* 21 U.S.C. § 823(h)(2). Moreover, Respondent has no effective means of accounting for List I chemical products. *Id.* § 823(h)(1). Finally, the record establishes that Respondent sold large amounts of non-traditional products into the non-traditional or “gray market,” a market which DEA has repeatedly found to be a substantial source for diversion, and the statistical improbability that these sales were to meet legitimate consumer demand supports a finding that the products were diverted into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *Id.* § 823(h)(5). *See also Joy's Ideas,* 70 FR at 33199; *Branex, Inc.,* 69 FR 8682, 8693 (2004); *Xtreme Enterprises, Inc.,* 67 FR 76195, 76197 (2002). Thus, it is clear that continuing Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Order Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. § 823(h) & § 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, 004395TSY, issued to T. Young Associates, Inc., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective November 13, 2006. Dated: September 14, 2006. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 06-8193 Filed 10-12-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 23
Traces to 23 documents
12 references not yet in our index
  • 33 CFR 136
  • 42 USC 5121-5206
  • Pub. L. 107-296
  • 6 CFR 5
  • 44 CFR 6
  • 24 CFR 581
  • 50 CFR 18
  • Pub. L. 107-282
  • 419 F.3d 477
  • 412 F.3d 165
  • Pub. L. 104-237
  • 110 Stat. 3099
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of interpretation
U.S.C.§ 6308
U.S.C.§ 2701
U.S.C.§ 2713
U.S.C.§ 300hh–11
U.S.C.§ 552a
U.S.C.§ 101
U.S.C.§ 11101
U.S.C.§ 2904
U.S.C.§ 11411
F. App'x419 F.3d 477
F. App'x412 F.3d 165
Cite33 CFR 136
Cites 35 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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