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 · 2006-10-24 · PROPOSED RULES · Unknown

Unknown. Final rule

19,125 words·~87 min read·/register/2006/10/24/06-8830

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

--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-10-24.xml --- 71 205 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Contents Agency Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62266-62267 06-8831 AID Agency for International Development PROPOSED RULES Acquisition regulations: Post differential and danger pay allowances; application to extended workweeks under cost-reimbursement type contracts, 62229-62230 E6-17543 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service See Farm Service Agency See Forest Service See Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62238 E6-17735 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, 62238-62239 E6-17793 Alcohol Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62299 E6-17753 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Exportation and importation of animals and animal products: Foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest; disease status change— Namibia, 62198-62201 E6-17776 Plant-related quarantine, foreign:
Shelled garden peas from Kenya, 62197-62198 E6-17774 PROPOSED RULES Animal welfare: Captive elephants; space and living conditions, 62215 E6-17775 NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62239-62240 E6-17772 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Solid wood packing material; importation, 62240 E6-17773 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Exotic fruit fly; strategic plan, 62241-62242 E6-17777 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board PROPOSED RULES Telecommunications Act accessibility guidelines and electronic and information technology accessibility standards:
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings, 62226-62227 E6-17758 Broadcasting Broadcasting Board of Governors NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62247 06-8866 Census Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Census Advisory Committees, 62248-62249 E6-17783 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Statistical Support Most Efficient Organization, 62267-62268 06-8839 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Ports and waterways safety; regulated navigation areas, safety zones, security zones, etc.:
Notice of arrival; port or place of destination; policy statement, 62210 E6-17822 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62247-62248 E6-17739 E6-17740 Commodity Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62252-62253 06-8893 Customs Customs and Border Protection Bureau NOTICES Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
Setting bond amounts for importations subject to enhanced bonding requirements; monetary guidelines, 62276-62278 E6-17885 Defense Defense Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Contract debts; policies and procedures, 62230-62237 06-8806 Education Education Department NOTICES Meeting: National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 62253 06-8834 Energy Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Complex 2030; stockpile stewardship and management; correction, 62351 Z6-17508 Meetings:
Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee, 62254 E6-17761 Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board— Savannah River Site, SC, 62253-62254 E6-17760 EPA Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Maryland, 62210-62212 E6-17795 PROPOSED RULES Air pollution control: Indian country; new sources and modifications review, 62227-62229 E6-17809 NOTICES Meetings: Science Advisory Board, 62257-62259 E6-17803 E6-17804 Farm Farm Service Agency NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
American Indian Credit Outreach Initiative, 62242-62246 E6-17736 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airmen certification: Airman and medical certificate holders; disqualification based on alcohol violations and refusals to submit to drug or alcohol testing Correction, 62209 E6-17823 PROPOSED RULES Air traffic operating and flight rules, etc.: LaGuardia Airport, NY; congestion management rule, 62217-62219 E6-17818 Airworthiness directives: General Electric Co., 62215-62217 E6-17742 NOTICES Exemption petitions; summary and disposition, 62345 E6-17827 Meetings:
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 62345-62346 E6-17825 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Electric rate and corporate regulation combined filings, 62255-62257 E6-17784 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Affinity Skilled Living and Rehabilitation Center, Oakdale, NY, 62254-62255 E6-17785 Lumberton Power, Inc., et al., 62255 E6-17786 NorthWestern Corp., 62255 E6-17787 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62346 E6-17802 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Depository institutions; reserve requirements (Regulation D):
Low reserve tranche, reserve requirement exemption, and deposit reporting cutoff level; annual indexing, 62201-62204 E6-17737 NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, E6-17728 62259-62260 E6-17755 Federal Open Market Committee: Domestic policy directives, 62260 E6-17771 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection, and retaliation laws; No FEAR Act notice, 62260-62261 E6-17730 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62261-62266 E6-17790 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and threatened species and marine mammal permit applications, determinations, etc., 62291 E6-17715 Endangered and threatened species permit applications, determinations, etc., 62290 E6-17746 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
Washington Natural Resources Department aquatic lands habitat conservation plan, 62251-62252 06-8860 Marine mammals permit applications, determinations, etc, 62291-62292 E6-17719 Meetings: Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 62292 E6-17710 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Asian carps in U.S.; management and control plan, 62292-62293 E6-17794 Food Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, E6-17718 62268 E6-17720 Medical devices:
Premarket notification exemptions; Class II devices— Cranial orthosis type devices, 62268-62269 E6-17729 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Global Harmonization Task Force Study Groups; proposed and final documents, 62269-62271 E6-17727 Portable invasive blood glucose monitoring systems; total product life cycle, 62271-62272 E6-17757 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Resource Advisory Committees— Ravalli County, 62246 06-8838 GSA General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR):
Contract debts; policies and procedures, 62230-62237 06-8806 Health Health and Human Services Department See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Human Research Protections Advisory Committee, 62266 E6-17743 Homeland Homeland Security Department See Coast Guard See Customs and Border Protection Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62272-62275 E6-17805 E6-17820 E6-17821 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, 62275 E6-17764 Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Public and Indian housing: Public housing projects; demolition or disposition, 62354-62369 E6-17724 NOTICES Grant and cooperative agreement awards: Housing Choice Voucher Family Self Sufficiency Program, 62278-62290 E6-17723 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Disaster recovery grants provided to States; waivers and alternative requirements, 62372-62374 06-8856 Meetings:
Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, 62290 E6-17722 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service International International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Hidalgo County, TX: Rio Grande Flood Control Project, 62295-62297 E6-17680 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and parts from— China, 62249 E6-17781 Tissue paper products from— China, 62249-62250 E6-17780 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations:
Flash memory chips, flash memory systems, and products containing same, 62297-62298 E6-17770 Justice Justice Department See Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau See Parole Commission NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62298 E6-17754 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62293 06-8819 Oil and gas leases: Wyoming, 62293 E6-17810 E6-17816 Survey plat filings:
Montana, 62293-62294 E6-17748 Mexico Mexico and United States, International Boundary and Water Commission See International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook: Training grant and award procedures, 62209-62210 E6-17801 PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Contract debts; policies and procedures, 62230-62237 06-8806 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management:
Northeastern United States fisheries— Atlantic herring, 62213-62214 06-8830 NOTICES Coastal zone management programs and estuarine sanctuaries: State programs— Intent to evaluate performance, 62250 E6-17750 Environmental statements; notice of intent: Washington Natural Resources Department aquatic lands habitat conservation plan, 62251-62252 06-8860 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places; pending nominations, 62294-62295 E6-17732 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meeting:
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Advisory Committee, 62300 06-8841 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62300 06-8894 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Turtle Creek Watershed, NE, 62246 E6-17797 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Programs Manual; Resource Conservation and Development Program (Part 513), 62246-62247 E6-17806 Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Export and import license applications for nuclear facilities and materials:
UniTech Services Group, Inc., 62301-62302 E6-17749 E6-17751 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62305 06-8867 Operating licenses, amendments; no significant hazards considerations; biweekly notices, 62306-62318 E6-17546 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Licensees authorized to possess and transfer items containing radioactive material quantities of concern; additional security measures, 62302-62305 E6-17762 Operator manual actions; feasibility and reliability in response to fire; demonstration, 62323-62324 E6-17824 *Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.:* Siemaszko, Andrew, 62300-62301 E6-17839 USEC Inc., 62318-62323 E6-17752 Parole Parole Commission NOTICES Meetings;
Sunshine Act, 06-8871 62299 06-8871 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 62324-62325 E6-17731 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 62325-62329 E6-17734 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 62329-62331 E6-17733 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 62338-62343 E6-17745 New York Stock Exchange LLC et al., 62331-62338 E6-17744 SBA Small Business Administration RULES Small business size standards:
Surety Bond Guarantee Program, 62204-62208 E6-17682 NOTICES Disaster loan areas: Alaska, 62343 E6-17769 New York, 62343 E6-17768 Virginia, 62343-62344 E6-17766 E6-17767 State State Department PROPOSED RULES Deaths and estates, 62219-62226 E6-17591 NOTICES Arms Export Control Act: Presidential determinations, 62344 E6-17796 Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition: El Greco to Picasso: Time, Truth, and History, 62344 E6-17782 Environmental statements; notice of intent:
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P.; floodplain and wetland involvement; public scoping meetings; correction, 62344-62345 E6-17792 Surface Surface Transportation Board RULES Practice and procedure: Class exemption proceedings; public participation, 62212-62213 E6-17759 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration See Federal Highway Administration See Surface Transportation Board Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 62346-62347 E6-17788 E6-17789 Veterans Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 62347-62350 E6-17756 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Housing and Urban Development Department, 62354-62369 E6-17724 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 62372-62374 06-8856 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 205 Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0073] RIN 0579-AC17 Importation of Shelled Garden Peas From Kenya AGENCY:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya into the continental United States. In order to be eligible for importation, the peas will have to be shelled, washed, and inspected and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service. This action will allow for the importation of shelled peas from Kenya into the continental United States while continuing to protect against the introduction of quarantine pests.
DATES: *Effective Date:* November 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Porsche, Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8758. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. On July 6, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 38302-38304, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0073) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to allow the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya into the continental United States. We proposed that in order to be eligible for importation, the peas would have to be shelled, washed, and inspected and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS). We proposed these changes to allow for the importation of shelled peas from Kenya into the continental United States while continuing to protect against the introduction of quarantine pests. 1 To view the proposed rule, go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0073, then click “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending September 5, 2006. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change. Note: In our July 2006 proposed rule, we proposed to add the conditions governing the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya as § 319.56-2ss. In this final rule, those conditions are added as § 319.56-2bb. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of shelled garden peas from Kenya into the continental United States. In order to be eligible for importation, the peas will have to be shelled, washed, and inspected and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by KEPHIS. This action allows for the importation of shelled peas from Kenya into the continental United States while continuing to protect against the introduction of quarantine pests. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. In our proposed rule, we asked the public to provide any comments on the potential economic effects of allowing the importation into the continental United States of garden peas from Kenya, and on how the proposed rule could be modified to reduce expected costs or burdens for small entities consistent with its objectives. In addition, we invited the public to comment on the potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities, in particular the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of the proposed rule. However, we did not receive any additional information or data in response to those requests. The United States is the third largest producer of garden peas after India and China. However, less than 1 percent of U.S. production goes into the fresh market, the reason being that fresh garden peas require harvesting by hand, whereas peas destined for processing can be machine-harvested. The cost of farm labor is considerably higher in the United States than in many other countries. According to industry sources, fresh garden peas grown in the United States are mainly produced in California (more than 85 percent), with the rest grown mainly in Florida. Published data on domestic production of fresh garden peas exist only for two counties in California, San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County. 2 Based on the 2000-2004 data for these two counties, California snow pea production declined over that 5-year period, while green pea production has expanded. The value of pea production in those two counties in 2004 was $29 million. 2 Annual County Agricultural Commissioner Report Data (Sacramento: California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2000-2004). The United States is a net importer of fresh/chilled peas, and our major foreign supplier of fresh garden peas in 2005 was Guatemala, with a 45 percent share (by value) of U.S. imports, followed by Peru (29 percent) and Mexico (24 percent). Nearly all U.S. fresh pea exports go to Canada. Our reported domestic supply of fresh garden peas (California production plus net U.S. imports) in 2004 totaled about 39,700 metric tons, valued at $42.7 million. These totals exclude U.S. production that may have taken place outside of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. If we include the 15 percent of unreported U.S. production of fresh garden peas thought to occur outside of the two California counties, then the 2004 domestic supply would total about 42,800 metric tons, with roughly 65 percent imported and 35 percent supplied by U.S. producers. U.S. entities that could be affected by this final rule are domestic producers of fresh garden peas and wholesalers who import fresh garden peas. Businesses producing green peas and snow peas are classified in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) within the category of Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming (NAICS code 111219). The Small Business Administration's
(SBA)small entity definition for these producers is annual receipts of not more than $750,000. Firms that would import fresh, shelled garden peas from Kenya are defined as small entities if they have 100 or fewer employees (NAICS code 424480, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers). 3 3 The wholesale sector comprises two types of wholesalers: Those that sell goods on their own account and those that arrange sales and purchases for others for a commission or fee. Importers are included in both cases. In general, firms engaged in production or importation of agricultural commodities are predominantly small. We believe that most if not all of the businesses affected by this final rule would be small. We do not know the number of U.S. producers of fresh garden peas. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture for California Counties, there were 327 vegetable farms in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, the two counties for which there are published fresh garden pea production data. We do not know how many of these vegetable farms produce fresh garden peas. Also, we do not know their size, but in general, such entities are predominantly small. As noted above, we asked for this type of information in our proposed rule and did not receive any comments. This rule contains various recordkeeping requirements, which were described in our proposed rule, and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (see “Paperwork Reduction Act” below). Executive Order 12988 This final rule allows shelled garden peas to be imported into the United States from Kenya. State and local laws and regulations regarding shelled garden peas imported under this rule will be preempted while the peas are in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.,* ) the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under OMB control number 0579-0302. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables. Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows: PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 2. A new § 319.56-2bb is added to read as follows: § 319.56-2bb Conditions governing the entry of shelled garden peas from Kenya. Garden peas ( *Pisum sativum* ) may be imported into the continental United States from Kenya only under the following conditions:
(a)The peas must be shelled from the pod.
(b)The peas must be washed in disinfectant water at 3 to 5 °C containing 50 ppm chlorine.
(c)Each shipment of peas must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the national plant protection organization of Kenya bearing the following additional declaration: “These peas have been shelled and washed in accordance with 7 CFR 319.56-2bb and have been inspected and found free of pests.” (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0302) Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of October 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-17774 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0037] Change in Disease Status of Namibia With Regard to Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Rinderpest AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to add Namibia, except the portion of the country north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF), to the list of regions that are considered free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and to add the entire country to the list of regions that are considered free of rinderpest. We are taking this action because we have determined that the region in Namibia south of the VCF is now free of FMD and the entire country is free of rinderpest. We are also adding Namibia, except the region north of the VCF, to the list of FMD- and rinderpest-free regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and other animal products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. This action relieves certain restrictions due to FMD and rinderpest on the importation into the United States of certain live animals and animal products from all regions of Namibia except the region north of the VCF. However, because we consider Namibia to be affected with African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease, the importation of live swine and pork and pork products will continue to be restricted. In addition, because we consider Namibia to be affected with other animal diseases that are exotic to the United States, the importation of live ruminants and germplasm will also continue to be restricted. These actions will update the disease status of Namibia with regard to FMD and rinderpest while continuing to protect the United States from an introduction of those diseases by providing additional requirements for any meat and meat products imported into the United States from Namibia. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Javier Vargas, Animal Scientist, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-0756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are declared free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. Rinderpest or FMD exists in all other parts of the world not listed. Section 94.11 of the regulations lists regions of the world that have been determined to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. On June 15, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 34537-34549, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0037) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations by recognizing the entire country of Namibia as rinderpest-free and all of Namibia except the region north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence
(VCF)as free of FMD. We also proposed to add Namibia, except the region north of the VCF, to the list of FMD- and rinderpest-free regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and other animal products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. In our proposal, we noted that, because we consider Namibia to be affected with African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease, the importation of live swine and pork and pork products would continue to be restricted. In addition, because we consider Namibia to be affected with other animal diseases that are exotic to the United States, the importation of live ruminants and germplasm would also continue to be restricted. 1 To view the proposed rule, go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* click on the “Advanced Search” tab, and select “Docket Search.” In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-2006-0037, then click “Submit.” Clicking on the Docket ID link in the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the docket. We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending August 14, 2006. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866. We are amending the regulations in § 94.1 to list Namibia as a region free of rinderpest and the region of Namibia south of the VCF as a region free of FMD. However, since Namibia borders on and trades with regions that the United States does not recognize as free of FMD and because its importation standards are less stringent than those of the United States, we are also listing the region of Namibia south of the VCF in § 94.11 as a region subject to the additional certification requirements of that section. It should be noted that Namibia is not currently eligible to export ruminant meat products to the United States under the regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS); there would, therefore, be no economic effects on U.S. entities until establishments in Namibia were approved to export ruminant meat and other products to the United States. The following analysis examines the potential economic impacts of the changes in the regulations that could occur if establishments in Namibia were approved to export under the FSIS regulations. Namibia produces and internationally trades in beef, sheep, goat, and game meat. Namibia produced 134 million pounds of beef in 2004 and exported an average of 59.2 million pounds of beef and veal per year between 1994 and 2003. The country has established trading relationships with the Republic of South Africa and several western European countries. Namibia also produced 29.6 million pounds of mutton, lamb, and goat meat in 2003 and exported an average of 5.73 million pounds per year between 1994 and 2003, with most exports going to the Republic of South Africa. Namibia produced 8.8 million pounds of game meat in 2003. Namibia's agricultural trade with the United States is small. In 2003, Namibia exported agricultural products worth a total $199,000, of which $21,000 was for hides and skins, and imported $5.443 million worth of agricultural products, of which $40,000 was for beef and veal. ( *Sources:* FAO, FAOSTAT, 2004; UN/FAO, FAOSTAT Data, 2004; Hilda Hampweya, April 2005, personal communication, Namibia Division of Trade and Statistics.) Possible economic effects of imports from Namibia would differ for beef and for sheep and goat meat imports. For beef imports, approximately 22 million pounds of beef could be imported annually from Namibia as a result of this rule (again, assuming FSIS approval) based on data collected from the Central Bureau of Statistics-Trade Statistics Division of Namibia. Based on 10-year average U.S. domestic supply, an import of about 22 million pounds of beef would result in a price decrease of less than $0.002 per pound at the wholesale level. If 50 percent of Namibia's 10-year average beef exports (29.6 million pounds) were diverted to the U.S. market, the result would be a price decline of only $0.0024 per pound (table 1). As for sheep and goats, the estimated potential exports to the United States of these meats are about 15.43 million pounds per year according to data collected from the Central Bureau of Statistics-Trade Statistics Division of Namibia. If this supply were realized, U.S. sheep and goat meat prices could decline and sheep producers could be negatively affected, as the above figure represents about 4.35 percent of U.S. domestic supply. This could result in a price decline of $0.07 per pound (table 1). However, it is questionable whether Namibia would have the capacity to export this amount and maintain its trade with its established South African and European markets. Although several markets in the European Union are accessible to Namibia, the Republic of South Africa continues to be its major trading partner. Namibia exported 15.66 million pounds of sheep and goat meat to all countries in 2003, so to meet this goal of 15.43 million pounds exported to the United States, nearly all of the current exports would have to be diverted. Between 1994 and 2003, Namibian exports of sheep and goats have fluctuated, with a negative export growth rate in every year except for four: 1995, 1998, 1999, and 2001. The impact is not as large when based on the 10-year average quantity exported of 5.73 million pounds. Assuming this level of export to the United States, the estimated decline in price is between $0.02 and $0.03 per pound. Table 1.—The Impact of the Importation of Beef, Sheep, and Goat Meat From Namibia to the United States Percentage diverted to U.S. market 1 Beef Million pounds Change in price (%) Decline in price (cents/pound) Domestic producer loss (millions of $) Sheep and goat meat Million pounds Change in price (%) Decline in price (cents/pound) Domestic producer loss (millions of $) 10 5.92 −0.0291 −0.0483 −11.902 0.573 −0.231 −0.261 −0.435 20 11.84 −0.0582 −0.0966 −23.795 1.146 −0.461 −0.521 −0.871 40 23.68 −0.1164 −0.1932 −47.586 2.293 −0.922 −1.042 −1.742 50 29.6 −0.1454 −0.2414 −59.479 2.865 −1.153 −1.303 −2.177 Designated 2 22.05 −0.1083 −0.1799 −44.309 2 15.43 −6.209 −7.016 −11.725 1 The percentages are based on the 10-year average exports: 59.2 million pounds for beef and 5.73 million pounds for sheep and goat meat. 2 Denotes the estimated amount indicated by Namibian agricultural specialists and the industry as being available for export to the United States. The impacts depicted in table 1 are further considered in terms of effects for large and small entities in table 2 (beef producers) and table 3 (sheep and goat producers). In each case, impacts at various import levels are apportioned between large and small establishments by inventory share, according to the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Average effects per establishment are calculated based on numbers of large and small establishments with reported sales (2002 Census of Agriculture). As shown in table 2, if Namibia were to divert to the United States 22.05 million pounds of beef exports per year, as projected by that country's agricultural specialists, the average annual decline in revenue for U.S. small entities would be about $28. Similarly, if 15.43 million pounds of sheep and goat meat exports per year were diverted to the United States, as projected by Namibia, the average annual decline in revenue for U.S. small entities would be about $108. Table 2.—Potential Effects for Large and Small Beef Cattle Producers Percentage diverted to the U.S. market 1 U.S. producer revenue loss (millions of $) Large 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) Small 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) 10 −11.902 −5.571 −860 −6.331 −8 20 −23.795 −11.138 −1,719 −12.657 −15 40 −47.586 −22.275 −3,437 −25.311 −30 50 −59.479 −27.642 −4,265 −31.637 −38 Designated −44.309 −20.741 −3,200 −23.568 −28 1 The percentages are based on the 10-year average exports: 59.2 million pounds for beef and 5.73 million pounds for sheep and goat meat. 2 Revenue losses to large and small establishments are distributed according to inventory share (46.81 percent for large and 53.19 percent for small establishments). Averaged revenue losses are calculated by dividing by the number of establishments (845,490 and 6,481 for small and large establishments, respectively). Table 3.—Potential Effects for Large and Small Sheep and Goat Producers Percentage diverted to the U.S. market 1 U.S. producer revenue loss (millions of $) Large 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) Small 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) 10 −0.435 −0.114 −765 −0.321 −4 20 −0.871 −0.229 −1,537 −0.642 −8 40 −1.742 −0.458 −3,074 −1.284 −16 50 −2.177 −0.573 −3,846 −1.604 −20 Designated −11.725 −3.084 −20,698 −8.641 −108 1 The percentages are based on the 10-year average exports: 59.2 million pounds for beef and 5.73 million pounds for sheep and goat meat. 2 Revenue losses to large and small establishments are distributed according to inventory share (26.3 percent for large and 73.7 percent for small establishments). Average revenue losses are calculated by dividing by the number of establishments (80,443 and 149 for small and large establishments, respectively). According to the size standards established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)for livestock and animal specialties, producers of cattle and calves (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 112111), game animals (NAICS 112990), sheep (NAICS 112410), and goats (NAICS 112420) with not more than $750,000 annual sales qualify as small entities. Based on data from the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 851,971 operations in the U.S. raised and sold 73 million cattle and calves in 2002. Small operations (over 99 percent of the farms) had an average of 68 cattle and an average income of $24,067, well below the SBA criterion of $750,000 in annual sales for businesses primarily engaged in cattle farming. Large operations had an annual income of $3,821,440. Similarly, over 99 percent of sheep and goat producers (80,443) are small. Small sheep and lamb producers had an average income of $7,520, while large ones had an average income of $1.042 million. Meat processing entities (NAICS 311612), and meat and meat product merchant wholesalers (NAICS 424470) may be affected by this rule (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Wholesale Trade-Subject Series, August 2006). Under SBA standards, meat processing establishments with no more than 500 employees and meat and meat product wholesalers with no more than 100 employees are considered small. In 2002, there were 1,335 companies in the United States that processed and sold meat. More than 97 percent of these establishments are considered to be small entities and had average sales of $15.4 million, while large meat processors had average sales of $188 million. In 2002, there were 2,535 meat and meat product wholesalers in the United States. ( *Source:* SBA and 2002 Economic Census.) Of these establishments, 2,456 (97 percent) employed not more than 100 employees and are, thus, considered small by SBA standards. Small wholesalers had average sales of $9.3 million, while large entities had average sales of $131 million. 2 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing-Industries Series, Wholesale Trade-Subject Series and Transportation and Warehousing-Subject Series, Issued December 2005. The only alternative to the rule would involve not changing the current regulations regarding the importation of beef, sheep, and goat meat and game meat from Namibia. This alternative would not be appropriate in light of the findings of our risk analysis and our conclusion that the Namibian government has the laws, policies, and infrastructure to detect, respond to, and eliminate any reoccurrence of FMD. The rule provides the safeguarding measures appropriate to the animal disease risk associated with importation of this type of animal product. The rule also enhances a positive trade environment between Namibia and the United States. We note again that Namibia is not currently eligible to export ruminant meat products to the United States under the FSIS regulations cited earlier in this document; there would, therefore, be no economic effects on U.S. entities until establishments in Namibia were approved to export ruminant meat and other products to the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12372 This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.) Executive Order 12988 This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule:
(1)Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule;
(2)has no retroactive effect; and
(3)does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows: PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. § 94.1 [Amended] 2. Section 94.1 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2), by adding the words “Namibia (excluding the region north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence),” after the word “Mexico,”. b. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing the words “The Republic” and adding the words “Namibia and the Republic” in their place. § 94.11 [Amended] 3. In § 94.11, paragraph
(a)is amended by adding the words “Namibia (excluding the region north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence),” before the words “The Netherlands”. Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of October 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-17776 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 204 [Regulation D; Docket No. R-1268] Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Board is amending Regulation D, Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions, to reflect the annual indexing of the reserve requirement exemption amount and the low reserve tranche for 2007. The Regulation D amendments set the amount of total reservable liabilities of each depository institution that is subject to a zero percent reserve requirement in 2007 at $8.5 million, up from $7.8 million in 2006. This amount is known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. The Regulation D amendment also sets the amount of net transaction accounts at each depository institution that is subject to a three percent reserve requirement in 2007 at $45.8 million, down from $48.3 million in 2006. This amount is known as the low reserve tranche. The adjustments to both of these amounts are derived using statutory formulas specified in the Federal Reserve Act. The Board is also announcing changes in two other amounts, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit, that are used to determine the frequency at which depository institutions must submit deposit reports. DATES: *Effective date:* November 24, 2006. *Compliance dates:* For depository institutions that report deposit data weekly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will apply to the fourteen-day reserve computation period that begins Tuesday, November 21, 2006, and the corresponding fourteen-day reserve maintenance period that begins Thursday, December 21, 2006. For depository institutions that report deposit data quarterly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will apply to the seven-day reserve computation period that begins Tuesday, December 19, 2006, and the corresponding seven-day reserve maintenance period that begins Thursday, January 18, 2007. For all depository institutions, these new values of the nonexempt deposit cutoff level, the reserve requirement exemption amount, and the reduced reporting limit will be used to determine the frequency at which a depository institution submits deposit reports effective in either June or September 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heatherun Allison, Senior Counsel (202/452-3565), Legal Division, or Margaret Gillis, Financial Analyst (202/452-3139), Division of Monetary Affairs; for user of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD)only, contact (202/263-4869); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 19(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts and nonpersonal time deposits, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)) authorizes the Board to require reports of liabilities and assets from depository institutions to enable the Board to conduct monetary policy. The Board's actions with respect to each of these provisions are discussed in turn below. 1. Reserve Requirements Pursuant to section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act (Act), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution are subject to reserve requirement ratios of zero, three, or ten percent. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. Section 19(b)(11)(B) provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the reserve requirement exemption amount for the next calendar year if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions increase from one year to the next. No adjustment is made to the reserve requirement exemption amount if total reservable liabilities held at all depository institutions should decrease during the applicable time period. The Act requires the percentage increase in the reserve requirement exemption amount to be 80 percent of the increase in total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment. Total reservable liabilities of all depository institutions grew by 10.4 percent (from $3,361.8 billion to $3,712.7 billion) between June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D to increase the reserve requirement exemption amount by $0.7 million, from $7.8 million for 2006 to $8.5 million for 2007. 1 1 Consistent with Board practice, the low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amounts have been rounded to the nearest $0.1 million. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)), transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, are subject to a three percent reserve requirement. Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche are subject to a ten percent reserve requirement. Section 19(b)(2) also provides that, before December 31 of each year, the Board shall issue a regulation adjusting the low reserve tranche for the next calendar year. The Act requires the adjustment in the low reserve tranche to be 80 percent of the percentage increase or decrease in total transaction accounts of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment. Currently, the low reserve tranche is $48.3 million. Net transaction accounts of all depository institutions declined 6.4 percent (from $714.9 billion to $669.1 billion) between June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2006. Accordingly, the Board is amending Regulation D (12 CFR part 204) to decrease the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts by $2.5 million, from $48.3 million for 2006 to $45.8 million for 2007. For depository institutions that file deposit reports weekly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for the fourteen-day reserve computation period beginning Tuesday, November 21, 2006, and for the corresponding fourteen-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, December 21, 2006. For depository institutions that report quarterly, the new low reserve tranche and reserve requirement exemption amount will be effective for the seven-day reserve computation period beginning Tuesday, December 19, 2006, and for the corresponding seven-day reserve maintenance period beginning Thursday, January 18, 2007. 2. Deposit Reports Section 11(b)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act authorizes the Board to require depository institutions to file reports of their liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable it to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control the monetary and credit aggregates. The Board screens depository institutions each year and assigns them to one of four deposit reporting panels (weekly reporters, quarterly reporters, annual reporters, or nonreporters). The panel assignment for annual reporters is effective in June of the screening year; the panel assignment for weekly and quarterly reporters is effective in September of the screening year. In order to ease reporting burden, the Board permits smaller depository institutions to submit deposit reports less frequently than larger depository institutions. In the past, the Board used the level of a depository institution's total deposits as one of the measures for determining the frequency at which a depository institution files deposit reports. With the elimination of M3, the Board announced in July 2006 that it would use a measure of deposits based on M2 instead of total deposits. That measure of deposits is the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits. 2 2 This measure also includes ineligible acceptances and obligations issued by affiliates maturing in less than seven days. The Board permits depository institutions with net transaction accounts above the reserve requirement exemption amount but with a sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits below a specified level (the “nonexempt deposit cutoff”) to report deposit data quarterly. The Board requires certain large depository institutions to report weekly regardless of the level of their net transaction accounts if the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits exceeds a specified level (the “reduced reporting limit”). The nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit are adjusted annually, by an amount equal to 80 percent of the increase, if any, in the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits of all depository institutions over the one-year period that ends on the June 30 prior to the adjustment. In the past, the Board has adjusted the nonexempt deposit cutoff level and the reduced reporting limit above their indexed levels as a part of its triennial review of the reports of deposit. From June 30, 2005 to June 30, 2006, the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits at all depository institutions increased 4.8 percent (from $5,598.0 billion to $5,867.1 billion). Accordingly, the Board is adjusting the nonexempt deposit cutoff level to $207.7 million for 2007. The Board is also adjusting the reduced reporting limit to $1.163 billion for 2007. 3 3 Consistent with Board practice, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level has been rounded to the nearest $0.1 million, and the reduced reporting limit has been rounded to the nearest $1 million. Beginning in September 2007, the boundaries of the four deposit reporting panels will be defined as follows. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts over $8.5 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) or with the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $1.163 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are subject to detailed reporting, and must file a Report of Transaction Accounts, Other Deposits and Vault Cash (FR 2900 report) either weekly or quarterly. Of this group, those with the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits greater than or equal to $207.7 million (the nonexempt deposit cutoff level) are required to file the FR 2900 report each week, while those with the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $207.7 million are required to file the FR 2900 report each quarter. Those depository institutions with net transaction accounts less than or equal to $8.5 million (the reserve requirement exemption amount) and with the sum of total transaction accounts, savings deposits, and small time deposits less than $1.163 billion (the reduced reporting limit) are eligible for reduced reporting, and must either file a deposit report annually or not at all. Of this group, those with total deposits greater than $8.5 million (but less than $1.163 billion) are required to file the Annual Report of Deposits and Reservable Liabilities (FR 2910a) report annually, while those with total deposits less than or equal to $8.5 million are not required to file a deposit report. A depository institution that adjusts reported values on its FR 2910a report in order to qualify for reduced reporting will be shifted to an FR 2900 reporting panel. *Notice and Regulatory Flexibility Act.* The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) relating to notice of proposed rulemaking have not been followed in connection with the adoption of these amendments. The amendments involve expected, ministerial adjustments prescribed by statute and by the Board's policy concerning reporting practices. The adjustments in the reserve requirement exemption amount, the low reserve tranche, the nonexempt deposit cutoff level, and the reduced reporting limit serve to reduce regulatory burdens on depository institutions. Accordingly, the Board finds good cause for determining, and so determines, that notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. Consequently, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, do not apply to these amendments. List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 204 Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 204 as follows: PART 204—RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D) 1. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows: Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(a), 248(c), 371a, 461, 601, 611, and 3105. 2. Section 204.9 is revised to read as follows: § 204.9 Reserve requirement ratios. The following reserve requirement ratios are prescribed for all depository institutions, banking Edge and agreement corporations, and United States branches and agencies of foreign banks: Category Reserve requirement Net transaction accounts: $0 to $8.5 million 0 percent of amount. Over $8.5 million and up to $45.8 million 3 percent of amount. Over $45.8 million $1,119,000 plus 10 percent of amount over $45.8 million. Nonpersonal time deposits 0 percent. Eurocurrency liabilities 0 percent. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 18, 2006. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E6-17737 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 RIN: 3245-AE81 Small Business Size Standards; Surety Bond Guarantee Program AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule finalizes the U.S. Small Business Administration's
(SBA)November 14, 2005 interim final rule that amended the small business size standard for its Surety Bond Guarantee
(SBG)Program for construction (general or special trades) or service concerns performing contracts in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma by allowing them to meet either the size standard for the primary industry in which it, together with its affiliates, is engaged, or the current $6.5 million standard for the SBG Program, whichever is higher. The size standard under this rule will remain in effect until SBA determines it is no longer necessary. DATES: *Effective Date:* This regulation becomes effective on November 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Jordan, Office of Size Standards,
(202)205-6618 or *sizestandards@sba.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBA's Surety Bond Guarantee Program and Size Standards SBA, through its SBG Program, can guarantee bid, performance, payment and ancillary bonds for contracts up to $2 million for small contractors who otherwise cannot obtain surety bonds without SBA's guarantee. SBA's guarantee gives sureties an incentive to provide bonding for eligible contractors; it strengthens a contractor's ability to obtain bonding and provides greater access to contracting opportunities. A contractor applying for an SBA bond guarantee must qualify as a small business concern, in addition to meeting the surety company's underwriting requirements. Generally, except as modified by the November 14, 2005 interim final rule, businesses in construction and service industries can qualify as small for the SBG Program on commercial, local or State contracts, if their average annual receipts, including those of their affiliates, for the last 3 fiscal years do not exceed $6.5 million (13 CFR 121.301(d)(1) and 13 CFR 121.104(c)). In addition, a concern that qualifies as small for a prime contract with the Federal Government is qualified as “small for financial assistance that is directly and primarily related to the performance of that particular contract” (13 CFR 121.305). Therefore, if the concern meets the small business size standard for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code designated by the contracting officer for a specific procurement, the concern is eligible for SBA's financial assistance programs, including the SBG Program, even when its annual receipts exceed $6.5 million. What This Final Rule Accomplishes On November 14, 2005, SBA published an interim final rule (70 FR 69048) revising the size standards for the SBG Program applicable to construction (general or special trades) and service concerns performing contracts in the Gulf Coast Region of the United States and in Florida that the President declared disaster areas following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. When the contract meets the performance location requirement, that interim final rule established that an SBG Program applicant concern is small when it meets the small business size standard for either the primary industry in which it, together with its affiliates, is engaged, or the then current SBG $6.0 million size standard, whichever is higher. On December 6, 2005, SBA issued an interim final rule (70 FR 72577) adjusting its monetary based size standards for inflation. In that interim final rule, SBA changed the surety bond guarantee size standard from $6.0 million to $6.5 million. Today's final rule adopts the November 14, 2005 interim final rule, with the inflation adjusted size standard of $6.5 million. Surety companies with whom SBA has executed a Preferred Surety Bond
(PSB)Agreement under 13 CFR part 115 are responsible for determining eligibility under this regulation. SBA surety bond personnel are responsible for determining eligibility under this regulation for those surety guarantees that require SBA's prior approval. This final rule also states in section 121.301(d)(3) that the concern is small if, together with its affiliates, it meets the requisite size standard. This merely clarifies that the concern must include the annual receipts or number of employees of its affiliates when determining if it is small. This language is the same as in section 121.301(d)(1). In addition, under SBA's small business size regulations and for all SBA programs, concerns must always include the annual receipts or number of employees of affiliates to determine if they are small (13 CFR 121.103, 121.104 and 121.106). In the Supplementary Information in the November 14, 2005 interim final rule, SBA stated that the amended size standards under the interim final rule are applicable until SBA determines that it is no longer necessary to expand the availability of SBG Program assistance for reconstruction and recovery of the Gulf Coast Region of the United States and in Florida that the President declared disaster areas following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. SBA further stated that the interim final rule was a specific response to those natural disasters. SBA recognizes that small construction and service contractors need this assistance now and in the very near future. The need for this size standard for the SBG Program should be no longer necessary when expanded contractor participation has ceased or declined significantly relative to past experience. Because of ongoing major recovery efforts in the disaster areas where this size standard is valid, SBA cannot foresee precisely when the need for expanded SBG assistance in the disaster areas will end. Construction contracts can be long term, and subcontracts are sometimes not awarded or begun until well into the overall general contract. SBA does believe, however, that this could take at least three more years. SBA will monitor the SBG Program, particularly the use of this modified size standard for work in the disaster areas. SBA's Office of Surety Guarantees will monitor annual Federal and State spending for rebuilding efforts, and as rebuilding approaches the desired end state, the office will continue to scrutinize the size and location of contracts bonded and the size of the small businesses that receive them. If SBA determines that this amended size standard causes an adverse effect on local small businesses or that the modified size standard is no longer needed, it will terminate or otherwise modify 13 CFR 121.301(d)(3). However, SBA will not terminate this special size standard without first proposing to do so by publishing a proposed rule in the **Federal Register** . The proposed rule will seek public comment on discontinuing the size standard, and it will propose a date on which it would cease to apply. Cessation or withdrawal of this size standard will have no affect on outstanding surety bonds that SBA has guaranteed. Contractors for whom SBA has guaranteed their bid bonds will remain eligible for performance, payment, maintenance and other required ancillary bonds, regardless of when they are needed. Similarly, contractors for whom SBA has guaranteed performance and payment bonds, will remain eligible for guaranteed maintenance and the other ancillary bonds required by the contract. Summary of Comments to the November 14, 2005 Interim Final Rule In the November 14, 2005 interim final rule, SBA requested comments on how long the amended size standards should apply to construction and service concerns performing contracts or subcontracts in the specified disaster areas, factors SBA should consider before determining that the size standards are no longer necessary, and the appropriate Agency action after SBA makes that determination. SBA received three comments to the interim final rule:
(1)Two surety associations and an insurance association filed joint comments on behalf of their member companies and their producers;
(2)an association of small minority contractors filed comments on behalf of its members; and
(3)an independent business submitted comments. The surety and insurance associations' comments reflected their concern that expanding SBG assistance to more and larger construction and service concerns might dilute SBA financial resources and services available to the truly small and emerging contractor. However, as the association also noted, “the SBA program currently is operating at only one-third of its capacity”. SBA believes that its financial resources are sufficient to absorb the additional obligations it may undertake under this regulation without adversely affecting other small businesses. The surety and insurance industries also expressed concern that the rule could create added administrative burdens for surety companies participating in the PSB Program. The new burdens could involve determining that an applicant company is within its industry size standard and assuring the contractor performs the construction work within the designated disaster areas. SBA believes any additional burden will be minimal. Surety companies already collect substantial information on their clients before they extend surety credit, such as annual and interim financial statements, company location, past contract performance information, and contract performance location. Furthermore, sureties already review an applicant's size. Determining whether a company meets a size standard is similar regardless of what the size standard is—$6.5 million or its industry standard, expressed in annual receipts or number of employees. Sureties collect and report to SBA the NAICS codes for their clients. SBA does not believe matching NAICS industry codes to their small business size standard constitutes a substantially increased burden. For construction, there are few size standards: $31 million for heavy and civil construction; $13 million for special trades; and $18.5 million for dredging. Size standards for service industries range from $3.5 million to $32.5 million in average annual receipts. SBA is not changing how to calculate whether a business concern is small. For receipts-based size standards, the calculation is still based upon the average annual receipts for the concern's 3 immediately preceding fiscal years. This is the same calculation used for the current $6.5 million size standard, and for those concerns and/or contracts that do not meet the location of contract performance criterion of this regulation. Thus, SBA does not believe there are substantial new burdens placed on the surety companies in this rule. The surety and insurance industries also expressed concern that SBA would not honor a surety bond guarantee if a surety did not properly document that the bond the company issued and SBA guaranteed met the criteria required by this rule. However, the information that surety companies collect and maintain for this amended size standard is what they now collect to support SBA guaranteed surety bonds. SBA has specified in this rule that the place of performance must be within certain geographical areas in order to use the amended size standards. SBA expects that sureties know the place of performance when they issue surety bonds. So long as they retain that information in their underwriting files, and the place of contract performance is in fact within the declared disaster areas, SBA does not see this as jeopardizing its guarantee on those bonds. Moreover, SBA's small business size regulations at 13 CFR 121.305 have permitted a small construction or service contractor with annual receipts greater than $6.5 million to qualify for its SBG Program when a concern is a prime contractor with the Federal Government and it meets the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the procurement. Under such circumstances, the surety has been determining whether a construction or service concern meets the size standard for the Federal procurement for which it submits an offer as a prime contractor, regardless of whether or not the concern has receipts in excess of $6.5 million. Thus, SBA believes that this final rule creates no additional burdens on the surety companies, since they now use the same criteria under section 121.305. Because a surety must now determine a contractor's eligibility based on the NAICS code that the contracting officer specified, SBA does not believe there is a substantially increased burden under this final rule. SBA also received comments from an association of small minority contractors. The association opposed the new SBG Program size standard and requested an immediate return to the prior size standard. In lieu of an immediate return, the association suggested terminating it 90 days from its effective date, which was November 14, 2005. The association expressed concern that increasing the size standard for these contracts unfairly increases competition for smaller businesses, specifically those below the current $6.5 million SBG size standard. The association was also concerned that the interim final rule rendered any construction or services concern eligible for SBG assistance, regardless of its principal place of business, so long as it performs its contract in the disaster area and meets the modified size standard. This would, according to the association, unnecessarily increase competition for contractors located in the disaster areas. The association believed these factors would negatively affect small minority contractors, who most need bond guarantees. SBA takes very seriously the possibility of negative effects on smaller contractors. In this case, however, SBA does not believe that companies not located in the disaster areas, if they perform contracts in the disaster areas and meet the modified standard, will adversely affect local small businesses. Because of the extreme demand for construction and services in the disaster areas, SBA expects there will be more contracts. SBA believes that the priority should be to help restore and reconstruct the disaster areas, and all small businesses should have greater opportunities to participate in this effort. As SBA states above, it will monitor these bonded contracts. If SBA finds that this rule has adversely affected local smaller businesses, then it will consider withdrawing or otherwise modifying this subsection. The third commenter was a small business that fully supported this regulation. Based on the commenter's remarks, it would appear that this size standard would not apply to its businesses. As the commenter describes his company, it is a supplier of telecommunications equipment. Therefore, it is not subject to a receipts-based size standard. The company would not be categorized as a construction or services firm. Rather, it would be classified as a manufacturer or dealer subject to a size standard based on the number of employees. The SBG size standard that applies is the same as this rule establishes; that is, it must meet the size standards for the industry in which it, together with its affiliates, is engaged (13 CFR 121.301(d)(2)). The commenter included additional comments that were not germane to the specifics of this regulation, but rather related to the size standard for the SBG Program itself. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, and 13132, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35) The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. A general discussion of the need for this regulatory action and its potential costs and benefits follows. 1. Is there a need for the regulatory action? As discussed in the November 14, 2005 interim final rule, this rule is necessary to extend the Agency's SBG Program to certain construction and service contractors when they undertake contracts in the disaster areas. The amended SBG Program size standard has limited applicability; that is, to contracts in the areas that the President declared a disaster in the Gulf Coast Region of the United States and in Florida, following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. The amended size standard enables as many small construction and service concerns as possible to help in the enormous task of renewing and reconstructing the disaster areas. This rule will increase available resources toward that end. SBA's statutory mission is to aid and assist small businesses through a variety of financial, procurement, business development and advocacy programs. To assist intended beneficiaries of these programs effectively, SBA must establish distinct standards to define small businesses. The Small Business Act
(Act)delegates responsibility for establishing small business definitions to the SBA Administrator (15 U.S.C. 632(a)). The Act also requires that small business definitions vary to reflect industry differences, as necessary. This modified size standard provides financial assistance to small businesses, a part of SBA's statutory mission. 2. What are the potential benefits and costs of this regulatory action? Anticipated total recovery and reconstruction costs for the Gulf Coast and Florida will be in the billions of dollars. SBA cannot estimate the number or value of contracts, whether Federal or non-Federal, that small construction and service concerns will receive in this undertaking. SBA also cannot estimate the number or value of contracts that will require surety bonds or the number or value of surety bonds that SBA will guarantee. Nor can it estimate the number of small businesses that will participate in the SBG Program under the expanded eligibility this rule provides. SBA can say, however, that given the possible volume and size of awards, it is probable that the needs of the disaster area exceed local available resources, at least to the extent necessary to accomplish the necessary work within a suitable time. SBA believes it is important to have as many small businesses as possible participating in renewing and reconstructing the disaster areas. Broadening eligibility for its SBG Program will provide disaster victims with significant and timely benefits when and where the greatest needs exist. For example, disaster affected small business concerns can receive SBG Program assistance to restart their businesses. Small businesses eligible under this modified size standard will also participate, as either general contractors or subcontractors, in the reconstruction of the areas' infrastructure. More small business concerns may now qualify for surety bonds with SBA's guarantee, and recover from and help others recover from the hurricanes' effects. SBA expects the number of SBA guaranteed bonds to increase under this regulation. Although SBA does not anticipate loss rates changing significantly, the Government may incur additional costs to honor its guarantee on a greater volume of (but stable percentage of) defaulted bonds. SBA must honor its guarantees to the sureties on defaulted bonds for the percentage of loss that it guaranteed. Guaranteed amounts vary as follows:
(1)Under the PSB Program, 70 percent; and
(2)under the prior approval program, contracts valued at $100,000 or less, or on behalf of a concern owned by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual, or a HUBZone qualified small business, 80 percent to 90 percent (13 CFR 115.31 and 115.68). For fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005, SBA's loss rates were 1.8 percent, 1.3 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively. SBA expects these rates to remain stable even though the volume of SBA guaranteed surety bonds may increase. Among businesses seeking SBA's assistance through the SBG Program, there could be additional costs for professional time required to complete applications for the surety and the SBA guarantee. Businesses also incur costs through payment of fees to participate in the SBG Program. Surety companies pay SBA 26 percent of the bond premium they collect and contractors pay $7.29 per $1,000 of the contract value, which the surety companies remit to SBA (71 FR 9632, dated April 3, 2006). This rule does not affect these fees. Total fees will increase because aggregate contract values will increase as a result of greater usage of the SBG Program. Although there have been no protests of an SBG Program participant's small business status in at least the last 5 years, businesses might also incur legal costs associated with defending themselves against size protests. Businesses may also incur legal costs associated with compliance. Both surety companies and SBA could incur additional administrative costs associated with processing the anticipated increased volume of surety bond applications and applications for the SBA guarantee. There may be additional administrative costs for PSB surety bond companies because they must document the contractors' eligibility for the SBA guaranteed surety bond under the amended size standard. SBA anticipates, however, that these additional administrative costs will be minimal because surety companies and SBA already perform these administrative functions in the ordinary course of business. SBA does not anticipate an increase in its human resources with the related administrative costs. The increased surety fees, as described above, will also add to SBA's reserves and proportionately offset the additional guarantee payments, if any. SBA anticipates little or no adverse effects on currently defined small businesses because of the increased number of newly eligible small businesses. Potentially, a newly defined small business could obtain a contract that a currently defined small business might have received. SBA expects those cases to be few in number because the decision to award a contract is based on many considerations. This rule enhances the environment for small construction and service concerns to compete for opportunities and strengthens their competitiveness related to contracts in the Gulf Coast Region of the United States and in Florida that the President declared disaster areas following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA has drafted this rule, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set forth in section 3 of that Order. This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, SBA determines that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. SBA has determined that this rule does not impose any new information collection requirements from SBA that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), this rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Immediately below, SBA sets forth a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The FRFA addresses the reasons for promulgating the rule; the objectives of this rule; SBA's descriptions and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply; the projected reporting record keeping and other compliance requirements of the rule; the relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the rule; and alternatives considered by SBA. 1. What is the reason for this action? This rule increases contracting opportunities for more small businesses. It extends eligibility for SBG Program assistance to certain construction and service contractors that were previously ineligible for the program because their average annual receipts exceed $6.5 million. It provides eligibility under the same small business size standards that apply to applicants for all other SBA financial assistance programs. Construction and service concerns that will perform contracts in the Gulf Coast regions and in Florida that the President declared disaster areas following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005 are eligible if they meet the size standard stated in the regulation. The amended size standard will also assist small construction and service concerns in the disaster areas whose financial conditions suffered adverse effects from the disasters. SBA's SBG guarantee can afford surety companies added incentive to provide these companies surety bonds if they meet their other underwriting requirements. 2. What are the objectives and legal basis for the rule? SBA intends to assist firms that will contribute to the recovery and reconstruction efforts in the Gulf Coast and Florida. SBA's objective is to involve as many small businesses as possible in that effort. Section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) gives SBA authority to establish and change size standards. SBA is using this authority to provide SBG Program assistance to those who need it and who can help with recovery and reconstruction. 3. What is SBA's description and estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply? This rule applies to all construction (general and special trades) and service concerns that meet the amended size standard, regardless of their principal place of business, that will perform their SBA guaranteed bonded contracts in the declared disaster areas. As stated above, SBA will monitor the SBG Program, particularly the use of this modified size standard for work in the disaster areas. SBA has not assessed the number of small construction and service contractors to whom it will apply, because there is not yet any adequate data on which to make such an estimate. SBA cannot estimate how many small construction and service concerns are in and how many are outside of the declared disaster areas. In addition, while it does have data on small businesses on a national basis, it does not have such information by State or other political jurisdiction. These data are what SBA uses to evaluate and establish small business size standards, which apply on a national basis. The scope of this amended size standard is limited to contracts performed in the Gulf Coast Region of the United States and in Florida that the President declared disaster areas following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. The most significant benefits of this rule will flow to small construction and service contractors that had not been eligible for SBG assistance before this rule because their average annual receipts exceeded $6.5 million. Under this rule, they are eligible if they (together with their affiliates) meet the small business size standards for their primary industries or the current SBG $6.5 million standard, whichever is higher, as well as meet the other requirement as to place of contract performance. Benefits will also flow to other entities in the disaster areas that can use the services of contractors not eligible for the SBG Program until now. SBA cannot estimate the number or value of Federal or non-Federal contracts that will require surety bonds. SBA cannot estimate the number of small businesses that will apply for SBG guarantees on their surety bonds or how many of those are located in the declared disaster areas. SBA believes, however, that increased contracting opportunities to participate in SBA's SBG Program will provide disaster victims with significant and timely benefits. Small construction and service contractors can receive SBG Program assistance to restart their businesses, if necessary, or help in their areas' reconstruction efforts. Under this size standard, more small business concerns may also qualify for more contracts and surety bonds with SBA's guarantee. Entities that are not small businesses, such as not-for-profit entities, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions that often require contractors to provide surety bonds to guarantee their contract performance, will benefit as well, because there will be a larger pool of bondable contractors that can perform work as needed. 4. Summary of significant issues raised by the public in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the November 14, 2005 Interim Final Rule SBA summarized above the three comments it received to the November 14, 2005 interim final rule. The surety and insurance industries' comments addressed a perceived increased recordkeeping burden on them to preserve SBA's guarantee on bonds they issue under this rule. However, SBA does not believe that this rule adds any additional recordkeeping requirements since it does not require sureties to maintain any information that they are not already required to maintain when they issue a bond with SBA's guarantee. The surety must document that the concern meets the small business size standard, which will continue as a requirement. The surety also knows where the contractor will perform its contract or subcontract before it issues its bond. Under this modified size standard, before issuing a surety bond with SBA's guarantees, the surety must be sure the bond guarantees a contract in one or more of the counties or parishes that the President declared disaster areas following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005. SBA has made the list of those counties and parishes readily available at *http://www.sba.gov/disaster_recov/katrina_rita_and_wilma_counties.pdf.* The association of small minority contractors expressed concern that there will be increased competition for contracts in the disaster areas as a result of this rule. This competition could come both from larger small companies in the disaster areas and from out of state companies. As stated above, SBA takes very seriously the possibility of negative effects on smaller contractors. In this case, however, SBA does not believe that companies not located in the disaster areas, if they are performing contracts in the disaster areas and meet this modified standard, will adversely affect resident small businesses. Because of the extreme demand for construction and services in the disaster areas, SBA expects there will be more contracts in the affected areas. SBA believes that the priority should be to help restore and reconstruct the disaster areas, and all small businesses should have greater opportunities to participate in this. SBA will monitor bonded contracts for which SBA has extended its guarantee. If SBA finds that this rule has adversely affected local smaller businesses, then it will consider withdrawing or otherwise modifying this subsection. 5. Will this rule impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small business entities? This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35. A new size standard does not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping or compliance requirements on small entities. Increasing size standards expands access to SBA programs that assist small businesses, but does not impose a regulatory burden because small business size standards neither regulate nor control business behavior. 6. What are the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule? This rule affects only SBA's SBG Program. This rule does not overlap with other Federal rules that use SBA's size standards to define a small business. Under § 632(a)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act, unless specifically authorized by statute, Federal agencies must use SBA's size standards to define a small business. SBA published in the November 24, 1995, **Federal Register** a table of statutory and regulatory size standards set by agencies other than SBA. (60 FR 57988-57991) SBA is not aware of any Federal rule that would duplicate or conflict with this rule. 7. What alternatives did SBA consider? SBA considered establishing a termination date for application of this size standard. SBA is not adopting this approach because it has no data it can use to anticipate when the amended size standard should no longer be available. Because SBA will be monitoring use of this size standard, it will be able to determine in the future how long the Agency should retain it for the SBG Program. As discussed above in the Supplemental Information, SBA will not terminate or withdraw this size standard without first seeking public comment to a proposed rule to do so. SBA will publish, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, its proposal in the **Federal Register.** Another alternative SBA considered was limiting applicability to concerns that were located within or had a place of business in the disaster areas when the hurricanes occurred. As noted above, some commenters indicated a preference for limiting eligibility to small businesses located within the disaster areas. Because this is a specific response to the disasters' effects, SBA believes it must increase available resources for the recovery and reconstruction by increasing the number of small businesses that can participate in this work. SBA's Office of Surety Guarantees will continue to monitor the SBG Program, including in particular the use of this modified size standard, for work in the disaster areas. SBA will examine the size of contracts bonded and the size of the small businesses that receive them. If SBA determines that this amended size standard causes an adverse effect on local small businesses or that the modified size standard is no longer necessary, it will consider modifying the regulation. SBA also considered applying this size standard to any contract, no matter where performed, provided it was directly and/or primarily related to the recovery and reconstruction efforts in the declared disaster areas. However, SBA believes that establishing a clear and direct nexus of a contract or subcontract to the recovery and reconstruction efforts in the disaster areas would not be practicable, and would cause an unnecessary burden on sureties. List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 121 Government procurement, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small business. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 121 of title 13 Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 121—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b), 637(a), 644, and 662(5); and Pub. L. 105-135, sec. 401 *et seq.* , 111 Stat. 2592. 2. Amend § 121.301 by revising paragraph (d)(1) and paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows: § 121.301 What size standards are applicable to financial assistance programs?
(d)* * *
(1)Any construction (general or special trade) concern or concern performing a contract for services is small if, together with its affiliates, its average annual receipts do not exceed $6.5 million, except as provided in § 121.301(d)(3).
(2)* * *
(3)For any contract or subcontract, public or private, to be performed in the Presidentially-declared disaster areas resulting from the 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita or Wilma, a construction (general or special trade) concern or concern performing a contract for services is small if, together with its affiliates, it meets the size standard for the primary industry in which it, together with its affiliates, is engaged, or if it meets the size standard set forth in paragraph (d)(1), whichever is higher. Dated: October 13, 2006. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-17682 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 121 [Docket No. FAA-2004-19835] RIN 2120-AH82 Disqualification for Airman and Medical Certificate Holders Based on Alcohol Violations and Refusals To Submit to Drug or Alcohol Testing AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Correcting amendment. SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to the final regulation published in the **Federal Register** on June 21, 2006. (71 FR 35760) This rule amended the airman medical certification standards to disqualify an airman based on an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater breath alcohol concentration
(BAC)or a refusal to take a drug or alcohol test required by the Department of Transportation
(DOT)or a DOT agency. DATES: Effective October 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL: Patrice M. Kelly, telephone
(202)267-8442. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Need for Correction As published, the final regulation contains an error referring to a drug test required that should read alcohol test required. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation. Accordingly, 14 CFR part 121 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-44703, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 44912, 45101-45105, 46105. 2. Revise paragraph D.1 of section V of Appendix J to Part 121 to read as follows: Appendix J to Part 121—Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program V. * * * D. Notice of Refusals. 1. Each covered employer must notify the FAA within 2 working days of any employee who holds a certificate issued under part 61, part 63, or part 65 of this chapter who has refused to submit to an alcohol test required under this appendix. Notification must be sent to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (AAM-800), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 or by fax to
(202)267-5200. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 13, 2006. Brenda D. Courtney, Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E6-17823 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Parts 1260 and 1274 RIN 2700-AD30 NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook—Training Grant and Award Procedures AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule makes the following administrative changes to NASA internal procedures: 14 CFR 1260.12(c)(3)(iii) is revised to identify the new name of the Science Mission Directorate's (SMD's) graduate fellowship program; and 14 CFR 1274.211(a) is revised to conform the HQ public announcement procedures to those in the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS). DATES: *Effective Date:* This final rule is effective October 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamiel C. Commodore, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division;
(202)358-0302; e-mail: *Jamiel.C.Commodore@nasa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background Following a reorganization, the NASA Earth System Science Fellowship Program was renamed the NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowship Program. This final rule includes the administrative change to 14 CFR 1260.12(c)(3)(iii) to reflect the new program title. Section 1805.303-71 of the NFS has been revised to require notification of the Administrator at least three days before the public announcement of contract award. This final rule makes an administrative change to the Grant Handbook to establish the same notification period for cooperative agreements with commercial firms. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act NASA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq* , because the changes are merely administrative and affect only internal Agency procedures. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose any new recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 1260 and 1274 Grant programs—science and technology. Tom Luedtke, Assistant Administrator for Procurement. Accordingly, 14 CFR parts 1260 and 1274 are amended as follows: PART 1260-GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 1260 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1), Public Law 97-258, 96 Stat. 1003 (31 U.S.C. 6301, *et seq* ), and OMB Circular A-110. 2. Amend § 1260.12 by revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii) to read as follows: § 1260.12 Choice of award instrument. ( c) * * *
(3)* * *
(iii)Students and faculty receiving direct support under a NASA training grant must be U.S. citizens, except for those supported by the NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowship Program, the NASA Earth System Science Fellowship Program, the Graduate Student Fellowship in Global Change Research Program, and the GLOBE Program. PART 1274—COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH COMMERCIAL FIRMS 3. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 1274 continues to read as follows: Authority: 31 U.S.C. § 6301 to 6308; 42 U.S.C. § 2451, *et seq.* 4. Amend § 1274.211 by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 1274.211 Award procedures.
(a)In accordance with NFS 1805.303-71, the NASA Administrator shall be notified at least three
(3)workdays before a planned public announcement for award of a cooperative agreement (regardless of dollar value), if it is thought the agreement may be of significant interest to Headquarters. [FR Doc. E6-17801 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 160 [USCG-2006-26016] Notice of Arrival; Port or Place of Destination AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of policy. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is announcing its policy regarding the term “port or place of destination” used in our notice of arrival regulations in 33 CFR Part 160, Subpart C. We are issuing this notice to provide clarification as to how that term will be used by Coast Guard personnel enforcing our notice of arrival regulations. DATES: This notice is effective October 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have any questions regarding this document, contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Julie Miller, Office of Vessel Activities (G-PCV), Coast Guard, by e-mail, *Julie.E.Miller@uscg.mil,* or telephone 202-372-1244. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose Representatives from the maritime industry have requested clarification of the definition of “port or place of destination” found in 33 CFR 160.204. This term is defined as “any port or place in which a vessel is bound to anchor or moor.” These requests for clarification arise from two situations. First, while many vessels arriving at a port or place of destination when operating solely between ports or places within a single Captain of the Port
(COTP)zone are exempt from submitting a notice of arrival (NOA), 33 CFR 160.203(b)(2), vessels carrying certain dangerous cargo
(CDC)are not. A vessel carrying CDC must submit a NOA for any port or place of destination, including movements within a COTP zone. Because of confusion about the term “port or place of destination,” some vessels carrying CDC submit NOAs every time the vessel changes berths or piers in the same port in certain COTP zones, while others only submit NOAs when they depart the current port and enter another port within the same COTP zone. Second, in some U.S. ports, after entering the port, transit time or distance to the berth is lengthy. Ports in Portland, OR, and New Orleans, LA, are two examples. In such situations the cognizant COTP may have an interest in when certain vessels arrive at the sea buoy or pilot station. In other U.S. ports, where transits are short or where the vessel must transit through another COTP zone to arrive at its intended berth (for example, transiting Hampton Roads, VA to get to Baltimore, MD) the COTP uses the vessel's arrival time at the berth or dock as the basis for enforcing compliance with the NOA regulation submission requirements. Policy In the two situations described above, the Coast Guard will exercise its discretion in enforcing NOA regulations as follows. A vessel required to submit a NOA for ports or places of destination within a single COTP zone (for example, a vessel carrying CDCs) need only do so if the vessel is actually moving from one port to another port within that COTP zone. The Coast Guard will not view the movement from one dock to another dock, one berth to another berth, or one anchorage to another anchorage within one port as being a transit from one “port or place of destination” to a different “port or place of destination.” A sea buoy or pilot station for a port will not be considered the arrival point for a vessel bound to anchor or moor in that port unless either the sea buoy or pilot station is the actual location where the vessel is bound to anchor or moor. If, based on information about a particular vessel, a COTP finds it necessary to know when that vessel reaches a sea buoy or pilot station, under separate authority he or she may issue an appropriate order specific to that vessel. The order may direct the vessel operator to advise the COTP when the vessel arrives, or is estimated to arrive, at the sea buoy or pilot station. It is anticipated this authority will be exercised only when necessary and will be specific to a particular vessel. Dated: October 13, 2006. F.J. Sturm, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Inspections and Compliance. [FR Doc. E6-17822 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607; FRL-8233-2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; State Implementation Plan Revision for American Cyanamid Company, Havre de Grace, MD AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan
(SIP)revision submitted by the State of Maryland. The intended effect of this action is to remove an August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order (Order) from the Maryland SIP. The Order constituted a Plan for Compliance
(PFC)and an alternative method of assessing compliance at an American Cyanamid Company (Company) facility located in Havre de Grace, Harford County, Maryland (the Facility). The Order allowed for certain volatile organic compound
(VOC)emissions sources at the Facility to achieve compliance with emissions limits through averaging (or “bubbling”) of emissions over a 24-hour period. Removal of the Order from the SIP will remove the “bubbling” compliance option for these sources at the Facility. In lieu of “bubbling,” the sources must comply with the approved and more stringent Maryland SIP provisions for the control of VOC emissions, which do not allow averaging or “bubbling.” This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on November 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA R03-OAR-2006-0607. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Bigioni,
(215)814-2781, or by e-mail at *bigioni.neil@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49393), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR)for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval of a SIP revision to remove the Order from the Maryland SIP. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Maryland on May 17, 2006. The Order was approved into the Maryland SIP in a final rule published on May 16, 1990 (55 FR 20269). The Order provided the Company with a PFC and an alternative method of assessing compliance for certain installations located at the Facility by allowing the averaging or “bubbling” of the emissions of VOC over a 24-hour period. By allowing “bubbling” of VOC emissions the Company could over-control emissions at some units and under control at other units such that the overall emissions from the sources collectively would be the same as those that would be achieved utilizing traditional control strategies at each source. The VOC sources where “bubbling” was allowed at the Facility were components of the Facility's paper and fabric adhesive coating operation, and included Towers 2, 3, and 5 and the FM-1000 coater/dryer. II. Summary of SIP Revision Removal of the Order from the SIP will subject the VOC emissions sources at the Facility that were formerly subject to the “bubbling” provisions of the Order to the Maryland VOC regulations and limits codified at Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.19.07. Those COMAR regulations are part of the Maryland SIP (65 FR 2334, January 14, 2000). The materials submitted by Maryland in support of the SIP revision indicate that the Facility currently intends to comply with the SIP-approved VOC limits by reducing VOC emissions through use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer, as allowed by COMAR 26.11.19.02B(2)(b)(ii) and the Maryland SIP (68 FR 9012, February 27, 2003). This SIP revision will remove the current ability for the current owner of the Facility, Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc., to comply with VOC emissions limits for the sources subject to the Order through averaging or “bubbling” of VOC emissions. The SIP-approved limits codified at COMAR 26.11.19.07C do not allow for compliance through averaging/“bubbling.” The applicable COMAR 26.11.19.07C limits of 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus water), are also more stringent than the emissions limit of 3.2 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus water) imposed by the Order. No public comments were received on the NPR. III. Final Action EPA is approving the removal of the August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order as a revision to the Maryland SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules:
(1)Rules of particular applicability;
(2)rules relating to agency management or personnel; and
(3)rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing source- specific requirements for a named source. C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 26, 2006. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the removal of the August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order as a revision to the Maryland SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 16, 2006. William Wisniewski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. For reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(d)is amended by removing the entry for American Cyanamid Co. [FR Doc. E6-17795 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board 49 CFR Parts 1150 and 1180 [STB Ex Parte No. 659] Public Participation in Class Exemption Proceedings AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, Transportation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board is modifying the timeframes in its rules for certain class exemptions to provide greater public notice in advance of the possible consummation of an exempt transaction. The proposed changes will ensure that the public is given notice of a proposed transaction before the exemption becomes effective; and that the Board may process such notices of exemption, and related petitions for stay, if any, in an orderly and timely fashion. DATES: These rules are effective November 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents referred to herein, are part of STB Ex Parte No. 659 and are available for inspection or copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 755, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, are posted on the Board's *http://www.stb.dot.gov* Web site, and are available from the Board's contractor, ASAP Document Solutions (mailing address: Suite 103, 9332 Annapolis Rd., Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail address: *asapdc@verizon.net;* telephone number: 202-306-4004). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar,
(202)565-1609. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose for this rulemaking was set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)served by the Board on March 10, 2006, and published in the **Federal Register** on March 16, 2006 (71 FR 13563-5). The Board is revising the class exemption procedures at 49 CFR 1150.31, *et seq.,* 49 CFR 1150.41, *et seq.,* and 49 CFR 1180.2(d), so that the exemptions will take effect 30 days (rather than 7 days) after a notice is filed, and **Federal Register** publication of the notice will precede the effective date of the exemption. The notice provisions at 49 CFR 1150.35 and 1150.45 (both of which involve transactions that would create a Class I or Class II carrier) also are revised, to allow transactions under these class exemptions to go forward in 45 days (rather than 21 days). The Board is adopting the changes as proposed in the NPRM. As indicated there, only the procedural timeframes for these rules are being revised—their scope, purpose and effect otherwise remain the same. This proceeding is based on the Board's exemption authority at 49 U.S.C. 10502. Comments The Board received comments on the proposed rules from the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association; Association of American Railroads; John D. Fitzgerald; Genesee & Wyoming Inc.; the State of New Jersey; Rail Conference, International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Rail Labor Division, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; and Watco Companies, Inc. A summary of this rulemaking proceeding and a discussion of the comments received in response to it, are set forth in the Board's decision served on October 19, 2006. That decision also provides a discussion of the Board's reasons for adopting the rules as originally proposed. For further information on the decision, interested parties should consult the Board's Web site at *http://ww.stb.dot.gov.* Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Board concludes that this action will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 1150 and 1180 Administrative Practice and Procedure, Railroads. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10502 and 5 U.S.C. 553. Decided: October 17, 2006. By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Mulvey, Commissioner Buttrey. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board amends parts 1150 and 1180 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 1150—CERTIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE, OR OPERATE RAILROAD LINES. 1. The authority citation for part 1150 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a), 10502, 10901, and 10902. 2. Amend § 1150.32 as follows: A. In paragraph (b), remove the words “30 days” and add, in their place the words “16 days”. B. In paragraph (b), remove the words “7 days” and add, in their place, the words “30 days”. C. In paragraph (c), add a new sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 1150.32 Procedures and relevant dates—transactions that involve creation of Class III carriers.
(c)* * * Stay petitions must be filed at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective. 3. Amend § 1150.35 as follows: A. In paragraph (e), remove the words “21 days” and add, in their place, the words “45 days”. B. In paragraph (e), remove the words “30 days” and add, in their place, the words “16 days”. C. In paragraph (f), revise the third sentence to read as follows: § 1150.35 Procedures and relevant dates—transactions that involve creation of Class I or Class II carriers.
(f)* * * Stay petitions must be filed at least 14 days before the exemption becomes effective. * * * 4. Amend § 1150.42 as follows: A. In paragraph (b), remove the words “30 days” and add, in their place, the words “16 days”. B. In paragraph (b), remove the words “7 days” and add, in their place, the words “30 days”. C. In paragraph (c), add a new sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows: § 1150.42 Procedures and relevant dates for small line acquisitions.
(c)* * * Stay petitions must be filed at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective. 5. Amend § 1150.45 as follows: A. In paragraph (e), remove the words “21 days” and add, in their place, the words “45 days”. B. In paragraph (e), remove the words “30 days” and add, in their place, the words “16 days”. C. In paragraph (f), revise the third sentence to read as follows: § 1150.45 Procedures and relevant dates—transactions under section 10902 that involve creation of Class I or Class II rail carriers.
(f)* * * Stay petitions must be filed at least 14 days before the exemption becomes effective. * * * PART 1180—RAILROAD ACQUISITION, CONTROL, MERGER, CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, TRACKAGE RIGHTS, AND LEASE PROCEDURES. 6. The authority citation for part 1180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 11 U.S.C. 1172; 49 U.S.C. 721, 10502, 11323-11325. 7. Amend § 1180.4 as follows: A. In paragraph (g)(1) introductory text, remove the words “one week” and add, in their place, the words “30 days”. B. In paragraph (g)(1)(ii), remove the words “30 days” and add, in their place, the words “16 days”. C. Redesignate paragraph (g)(1)(iii) as paragraph (g)(1)(iv) and add a new paragraph (g)(1)(iii). D. Remove paragraph (g)(2)(ii). E. Redesignate paragraph (g)(2)(iii) as paragraph (g)(2)(ii). F. Remove paragraph (g)(2)(iv). § 1180.4 Procedures.
(g)* * *
(1)* * *
(iii)The filing of a petition to revoke under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) does not stay the effectiveness of an exemption. Stay petitions must be filed at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective. [FR Doc. E6-17759 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 051130316-6047-02; I.D. 101706A] Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Total Allowable Catch Harvested for Management Area 1A AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Closure of Atlantic herring fishery for Management Area 1A. SUMMARY: NMFS announces that 95 percent of the Atlantic herring total allowable catch
(TAC)allocated to Management Area 1A (Area 1A) for 2006 is projected to be harvested by October 21, 2006. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, October 21, 2006, federally permitted vessels may not fish for, catch, possess, transfer or land more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring in or from Area 1A per trip or calendar day until January 1, 2007, when the 2007 TAC becomes available, except for transiting purposes as described in this notice. Regulations governing the Atlantic herring fishery require publication of this notification to advise vessel and dealer permit holders that no TAC is available for the directed fishery for Atlantic herring harvested from Area 1A. DATES: Effective 0001 hrs local time, October 21, 2006, through 2400 hrs local time, December 31, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Frei, Fishery Management Specialist, at
(978)281-9221. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the Atlantic herring fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of optimum yield, domestic and foreign fishing, domestic and joint venture processing, and management area TACs. The 2006 TAC allocated to Area 1A (71 FR 10867, March 3, 2006) is 60,000 mt (132,277,621 lb). The regulations at 50 CFR 648.202 require the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) to monitor the Atlantic herring fishery in each of the four management areas designated in the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Herring Fishery and, based upon dealer reports, state data, and other available information, to determine when the harvest of Atlantic herring is projected to reach 95 percent of the TAC allocated. When such a determination is made, NMFS is required to publish notification in the **Federal Register** of this determination. Effective upon a specific date, NMFS must notify vessel and dealer permit holders that vessels are prohibited from fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring or landing more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip or calendar day in or from the specified management area for the remainder of the closure period. Transiting of Area 1A with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on board is allowed under the conditions specified below. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that 95 percent of the total Atlantic herring TAC allocated to Area 1A for the 2006 fishing year is projected to be harvested by October 21, 2006. Therefore, effective 0001 hrs local time, October 21, 2006, federally permitted vessels may not fish for, catch, possess, transfer or land more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring in or from Area 1A per trip or calendar day through December 31, 2006; except a vessel may transit Area 1A with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on board, or land more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) provided such herring were not caught in Area 1A, and provided all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as required by § 648.23(b). Effective October 21, 2006, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase Atlantic herring from federally permitted Atlantic herring vessels that harvest more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring from Area 1A through December 31, 2006, 2400 hrs local time. Classification This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: October 18, 2006. James P. Burgess Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-8830 Filed 10-18-06; 3:18 pm]
Connectionstraces to 32
Traces to 32 documents
32 references not yet in our index
  • 7 CFR 319
  • 7 CFR 319.56
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 7 CFR 319.56-2
  • 9 CFR 94
  • 7 CFR 3015
  • 12 CFR 204
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 13 CFR 115
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 105-135
  • 111 Stat. 2592
  • 14 CFR 121
  • 14 CFR 1260.12(c)(3)(iii)
  • 14 CFR 1274.211(a)
  • 14 CFR 1260
  • 42 USC 2473(c)(1)
  • Pub. L. 97-258
  • 96 Stat. 1003
  • 14 CFR 1274
  • 42 USC 2451
  • 33 CFR 160
  • 40 CFR 52
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • 49 CFR 1150.31
  • 49 CFR 1150.41
  • 49 CFR 1180.2(d)
  • 49 CFR 1150.35
  • 49 USC 721(a)
  • 49 USC 721
  • 50 CFR 648
  • 50 CFR 648.202
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 604
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 450
U.S.C.§ 136
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 9701
U.S.C.§ 461
Cite7 CFR 319
Cite7 CFR 319.56
Cite7 CFR 2.22
Cites 64 · 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.