Rules and Regulations. Final rule

32,834 words·~149 min read·/register/2006/11/21/06-9297

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 520 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Ivermectin Paste AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) filed by Virbac AH, Inc. The supplemental ANADA provides revised labeling for oral use of generic ivermectin paste in horses that conforms to the pioneer product label. DATES: This rule is effective November 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-104), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0169, e-mail: *john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Virbac AH, Inc., 3200 Meacham Blvd., Ft. Worth, TX 76137, filed a supplement to ANADA 200-320 for EQUELL (ivermectin) Paste 1.87% that provides revised labeling for oral use of generic ivermectin paste in horses that conforms to the pioneer product label. The supplemental application is approved as of October 24, 2006, and 21 CFR 520.1192 is amended to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 520 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is amended as follows: PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. § 520.1192 [Amended] 2. In § 520.1192, in paragraph (b)(2) remove “Nos. 051311 and” and add in its place “No.”; and in paragraph (b)(4) remove “No.” and add in its place “Nos. 051311 and”. Dated: November 3, 2006. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E6-19616 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds; Lasalocid AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug application

(NADA)filed by Alpharma Inc. The supplemental NADA provides for the use of lasalocid Type A medicated articles containing 20 percent lasalocid activity per pound to make free-choice Type C medicated feeds used for increased rate of weight gain in pasture cattle (slaughter, stocker, feeder cattle, and dairy and beef replacement heifers). DATES: This rule is effective November 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric S. Dubbin, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855; tel: 301-827-0232; e-mail: *eric.dubbin@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alpharma Inc., One Executive Dr., Fort Lee, NJ 07024, filed a supplement to NADA 96-298 for use of BOVATEC 91 (lasalocid) Type A medicated article (20 percent lasalocid activity per pound) to make free-choice Type C medicated feeds used for increased rate of weight gain in pasture cattle (slaughter, stocker, feeder cattle, and dairy and beef replacement heifers). The supplemental NADA is approved as of October 20, 2006, and the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 558.311 to reflect the approval. The basis of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of this application may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subject in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 2. In § 558.311, revise paragraphs (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(ii), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii), and (e)(4)(i) to read as follows: § 558.311 Lasalocid.

(e)* * *

(2)* * *

(i)*Specification* . Ingredient Percent International feed No. Defluorinated phosphate (20.5% Ca, 18.5% P) 35.9 6-01-080 Sodium chloride

(salt)20.0 6-04-152 Calcium carbonate (38% Ca) 18.0 6-01-069 Cottonseed meal 10.0 5-01-621 Potassium chloride 3.0 6-03-755 Selenium premix (0.02 percent Se) 1 3.0 Dried cane molasses (46% sugars) 2.5 4-04-695 Magnesium sulfate 1.7 6-02-758 Vitamin premix 1 1.4 Magnesium oxide (58% Mg) 1.2 6-02-756 Potassium sulfate 1.2 6-06-098 Trace mineral premix 1 1.04 Lasalocid Type A medicated article (68 g/lb) 2 1.06 1 Content of the vitamin and trace mineral premixes may be varied; however, they should be comparable to those used by the firm for other free-choice feeds. Formulation modifications require FDA approval prior to marketing. Selenium must comply with 21 CFR 573.920. Ethylenediamine dihydroiodide

(EDDI)should comply with FDA Compliance Policy Guides Sec. 651.100 (CPG 7125.18). 2 To provide 1,440 g lasalocid per ton, use 21.2 lbs (1.06%) of a lasalocid Type A medicated article containing 68 g/lb. If using a lasalocid Type A medicated article containing 90.7 g/lb, use 15.88 lbs per ton (0.794%), adding molasses.

(ii)*Amount* . 1,440 grams per ton.

(3)* * *

(i)*Specification* . Ingredient Percent International feed No. Cane molasses 55.167 4-13-241 Condensed molasses fermentation solubles 24.0 50% Urea Solution (23% N) 12.0 Ammonium polyphosphate solution 1.0 6-08-42 Phosphoric acid (54%) 3.0 6-03-707 Xanthan gum 0.05 8-15-818 Water 4.0 Trace mineral premix 1 0.5 Vitamin premix 1 0.2 Lasalocid Type A medicated article (90.7 g/lb) 2 0.083 1 Content of the vitamin and trace mineral premixes may be varied; however, they should be comparable to those used by the firm for other free-choice feeds. Formulation modifications require FDA approval prior to marketing. Selenium must comply with 21 CFR 573.920. Ethylenediamine dihydroiodide

(EDDI)should comply with FDA Compliance Policy Guides Sec. 651.100 (CPG 7125.18). 2 To provide 150 gm lasalocid per ton, use 1.652 lb (0.083%) of a lasalocid liquid Type A medicated article containing 90.7 g/lb. If using a dry lasalocid Type A medicated article containing 68 g/lb, use, use 2.206 lbs per ton (0.111%), replacing molasses. If using a dry lasalocid Type A medicated article containing 90.7 g/lb, use 1.652 lbs per ton (0.083%), adding molasses.

(ii)*Amount* . 150 grams per ton.

(4)* * *

(i)*Specification* . Ingredient Percent International feed No. Monocalcium phosphate (21% P) 57.70 6-01-082 Salt 17.55 6-04-152 Distillers dried grains w/ solubles 5.40 5-28-236 Dried cane molasses (46% Sugars) 5.20 4-04-695 Potassium chloride 4.90 6-03-755 Trace mineral/vitamin premix 1 3.35 Calcium carbonate (38% Ca) 2.95 6-01-069 Mineral oil 1.05 8-03-123 Magnesium oxide (58% Mg) 1.00 6-02-756 Iron oxide (52% Fe) 0.10 6-02-431 Lasalocid Type A medicated article (68 g/lb) 2 0.80 1 Content of the vitamin and trace mineral premixes may be varied; however, they should be comparable to those used by the firm for other free-choice feeds. Formulation modifications require FDA approval prior to marketing. Selenium must comply with 21 CFR 573.920. Ethylenediamine dihydroiodide

(EDDI)should comply with FDA Compliance Policy Guides Sec. 651.100 (CPG 7125.18). 2 To provide 1,088 g lasalocid per ton, use 16 lbs (0.80%) of a lasalocid Type A medicated article containing 68 g/lb. If using a lasalocid Type A medicated article containing 90.7 g/lb, use 12 lbs per ton (0.6%), adding molasses. Dated: November 7, 2006. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E6-19614 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs For Use in Animal Feeds; Ractopamine AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration

(FDA)is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of two supplemental new animal drug applications (NADAs) filed by Elanco Animal Health. The first supplemental NADA revises the concentrations of ractopamine hydrochloride in single-ingredient Type B and C medicated swine feeds used for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and increased carcass leanness. The other supplemental NADA revises the concentrations of ractopamine hydrochloride used with tylosin phosphate in two-way Type C medicated swine feeds to conform with approved single-ingredient ractopamine use. DATES: This rule is effective November 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles J. Andres, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-120), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855; tel: 301-827-7561; e-mail: *charles.andres@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, filed a supplement to NADA 140-863 that provides for use of PAYLEAN (ractopamine hydrochloride) Type A medicated articles in Type B and C medicated feeds used for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and increased carcass leanness in finishing swine. The supplement revises the concentrations of ractopamine hydrochloride fed to finishing swine, weighing not less than 150 pounds, fed a complete ration containing at least 16 percent crude protein for the last 45 to 90 pounds of gain prior to slaughter. This supplemental NADA was approved on April 25, 2006. Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this supplemental approval qualifies for 3 years of marketing exclusivity beginning April 25, 2006. Elanco Animal Health also filed a supplement to NADA 141-172 that provides for use of two-way combination Type C medicated swine feeds formulated with PAYLEAN (ractopamine hydrochloride) and TYLAN (tylosin phosphate) single-ingredient Type A medicated articles. The supplement revises the concentrations of ractopamine hydrochloride in Type C medicated feeds used for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and increased carcass leanness; and for prevention and/or control of porcine proliferative enteropathies (ileitis) associated with Lawsonia intracellularis and for prevention of swine dysentery (vibrionic) in finishing swine, weighing not less than 150 pounds, fed a complete ration containing at least 16 percent crude protein for the last 45 to 90 pounds of gain prior to slaughter. This supplemental NADA is approved as of October 20, 2006, and the regulations in 21 CFR 558.500 are amended to reflect both approvals. The basis of these approvals is discussed in the freedom of information summaries. In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii), summaries of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to support approval of these applications may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.33(a)(1) that these actions are of a type that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. 2. Amend § 558.500 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (d)(1)(i); b. Add paragraph (d)(1)(iii); c. In the table in paragraph (e)(1), revise paragraph (e)(1)(i); d. In the table in paragraph (e)(1), in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(1)(iii), in the “Ractopamine in grams/ton” column, remove “4.5” and add in its place “4.5 to 9”; and e. In the table in paragraph (e)(1), remove paragraphs (e)(1)(iv), (e)(1)(v), and (e)(1)(vi). The revisions, addition, and removals read as follows: § 558.500 Ractopamine.

(d)* * *

(1)* * *

(i)Ractopamine may increase the number of injured and/or fatigued pigs during marketing.

(iii)No increased benefit has been shown when ractopamine concentrations in the diet are greater than 4.5 g/ton.

(e)* * *

(1)* * * Ractopamine in grams/ton Combination grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor

(i)4.5 to 9 For increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and increased carcass leanness in finishing swine, weighing not less than 150 lbs, fed a complete ration containing at least 16% crude protein for the last 45 to 90 lbs of gain prior to slaughter. Feed continuously as sole ration. 000986 * * * * * * * * Dated: November 7, 2006. Steven D. Vaughn, Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E6-19615 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD11-06-043] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Little Potato Slough, Terminous, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations. SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Highway 12 Drawbridge across Little Potato Slough, mile 0.1, at Terminous, CA. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period. The deviation is necessary for the bridge owner, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), to perform submarine power and control cable testing. DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on November 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone

(510)437-3516. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 25, 2006, Caltrans requested a temporary change to the operation of the Highway 12 Drawbridge, mile 0.1, Little Potato Slough, at Terminous, CA. The Highway 12 Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 34 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given as required by 33 CFR 117.167. Navigation on the waterway is mainly recreational with some commercial traffic hauling materials for levee repair. Caltrans requested the drawbridge be allowed to remain closed to navigation from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on November 28, 2006. During this time, submarine power and control cable testing will be conducted to ensure the continuing operation of the drawspan. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary rule were raised. Vessels that can transit the bridge while in the closed-to-navigation position may continue to do so at any time. Vessels unable to transit the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position can take alternate routes to reach either side of the closed bridge. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: November 8, 2006. R.C. Lorigan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-19675 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD05-05-131] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Manasquan River, NJ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final Rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulations that govern the operation of the Route 35 Bridge, at New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW) mile 1.1, across Manasquan River, at Brielle, New Jersey. The final rule will allow the drawbridge to provide vessel openings upon four hours advance notice from December 1 to March 31. This change will eliminate the continual attendance of draw tender services during the non-peak boating season while still providing the reasonable needs of navigation. DATES: This rule is effective December 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-05-131 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at

(757)398-6422. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory History On December 21, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway; Manasquan River, NJ” in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 75765). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. Background and Purpose The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) owns and operates the Route 35 Bridge, at NJICW mile 1.1, across Manasquan River, at Brielle, New Jersey. The current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(b) requires the drawbridge to open on signal except as follows: From May 15 through September 30, on Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays, from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. the draw need only open 15 minutes before the hour and 15 minutes after the hour; on Mondays to Thursdays from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., and on Fridays, except Federal holidays, from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need only open 15 minutes before the hour and 15 minutes after hour; and year-round from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw need only open if at least four hours notice is given. The Route 35 Bridge, a bascule-type drawbridge, has a vertical clearance in the closed position to vessels of 30 feet, at mean high water. The NJDOT has requested a change to the existing regulations for the Route 35 Bridge. This final rule will reduce draw tender services during the non-peak boating season by requiring openings of the bridge if at least four hours advance notice is given from December 1 to March 31. We reviewed the yearly drawbridge logs provided by NJDOT for the years 2000 to 2004, which revealed that the bridge opened for vessels 970, 835, 811, 716 and 685 times, respectively. NJDOT contends that the vessel traffic through the bridge is minimal during the winter months. During the period from December 1 to March 31, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., the bridge data for the years 2000 to 2004, the bridge opened 51, 61, 49, 48 and 47 times, respectively. The data shows a significant decrease in the number of bridge openings during the non-peak boating season. Based on the data provided, this change will have minimal impact on vessel traffic. Discussion of Comments and Changes The Coast Guard received no comments on the NPRM, and no changes were made. Discussion of Rule This final rule amends the regulations governing the Route 35 Bridge over the Manasquan River, at NJICW mile 1.1, at Brielle, New Jersey, set out in 33 CFR 117.733(b) by revising paragraph(b)(2). An amended paragraph (b)(2) will read “Year-round from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. and at all times from December 1 to March 31, the draw need only open if at least four hours notice is given.” Regulatory Evaluation This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the historical data, and on the fact that this change supports minimal impact due to the reduced number of vessels requiring transit through the bridge. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. For the reasons cited in the section on economic effects above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No assistance was requested from any small entity. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because it has been determined that the promulgation of operating regulations for drawbridges are categorically excluded. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. In § 117.733, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows: § 117.733 New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway. (b)(2) Year-round from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m., and at all times from December 1 to March 31, the draw need only open if at least four hours notice is given. Dated: November 7, 2006. L.L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-19673 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-06-109] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Potomac River, Alexandria Channel, DC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone covering certain waters of the Potomac River within a 500-foot radius of an explosives demolition site at the Virginia approach of the old Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, located near Alexandria, Virginia, in position latitude 38°47′36″ N, longitude 077°02′19″ W. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property during the fracturing of the west counterweight box by the use of explosives. This safety zone is intended to restrict maritime traffic in order to protect mariners from the hazards associated with the demolition. DATES: This rule is effective from 2 a.m. on November 20, 2006 through 3 a.m. on November 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-06-109 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald L. Houck, Waterways Management Division, at

(410)576-2674. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to the public interest, because there is not sufficient time to publish a proposed rule in advance of the event and immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels against the hazards associated with a demolition with explosives, such as premature detonation or falling debris. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . This safety zone of short duration is needed to provide for the safety of persons and vessels on the Potomac River and the public at large. Advance notification of the safety zone and the demolition will be provided to the public via marine information broadcasts and by local media. Background and Purpose At 2:30 a.m. local time on November 20, 2006, Engineered Explosive Services will fracture via an explosion the west counterweight box (a large block of concrete which counterbalanced the original drawbridge leaves over the west side of the shipping channel) for the old Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, which is located within the bridge pier on the western side of the shipping channel and situated totally above the waterline near Alexandria, Virginia. Provisions will be in place to minimize flyrock and seismographs will be in place on the Virginia shoreline to measure predicted minimal vibration levels. The explosion will use approximately 100 pounds of explosives in the form of linear shape charges. Due to the need for vessel control during the explosion, maritime traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of transiting vessels. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on certain waters of the Potomac River. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from 2 a.m. through 3 a.m. on November 20, 2006, and if necessary due to unexpected circumstances, from 2 a.m. through 3 a.m. on November 21, 2006. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the area during the event. No person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone. Vessels will be allowed to transit the waters of the Potomac River outside the safety zone. This safety zone is needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Although this rule prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Potomac River during the event, the effect of this rule will not be significant due to the limited duration of the regulation and limited size of the safety zone, and the extensive notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and local media, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Potomac River from 2 a.m. through 3 a.m. on November 20, 2006, and if necessary due to unexpected circumstances, from 2 a.m. through 3 a.m. on November 21, 2006. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The fracturing via an explosion of the west counterweight box for the old Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge near Alexandria, Virginia will only take ten minutes and the area affected is small. The safety zone will only apply to the Virginia side of the Potomac River, including the entire width of the federal navigation channel at the old Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. Vessel traffic not constrained by its draft, which small entities usually are, will be able to safely pass around the zone. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the harbor. Therefore, Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) that this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(a)*Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters located in the Potomac River, within a 500-foot radius of an explosives demolition site at the Virginia approach of the old Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, located near Alexandria, Virginia, in position latitude 38°47′36″ N, longitude 077°02′19″ W (NAD 83).

(b)*Regulations.* All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23 of this part.

(1)All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this zone, except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.

(2)Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the zone must request authorization from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative by telephone at

(410)576-2693 or on marine band radio channel 16 VHF-FM.

(3)All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on marine band radio channels 13 and 16 VHF-FM.

(4)The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall:

(i)Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign, and

(ii)proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.

(c)*Definitions.* The Captain of the Port means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

(d)*Enforcement.* The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zones by Federal, State and local agencies.

(e)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 2 a.m. through 3 a.m. on November 20, 2006, and if necessary due to unexpected circumstances, from 2 a.m. through 3 a.m. on November 21, 2006. Dated: November 6, 2006. Jonathan C. Burton, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-19676 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP St. Petersburg 06-220] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Sanibel Island Bridge Span C, Ft. Myers Beach, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of San Carlos Bay, Florida in the vicinity of the Sanibel Island Bridge span “C” while bridge construction is conducted. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the construction workers and mariners on the navigable waters of the United States. DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on November 1, 2006, through 9 p.m. on June 30, 2007. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP 06-220] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida 33606-3598 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Waterways Management Division at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg,

(813)228-2191, Ext. 8307. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The bridge contractor did not provide the information for the bridge construction with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. The Coast Guard did not receive the scope of work for the remaining construction until September 28, 2006, at a meeting held with the contractors. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the construction workers and mariners transiting the area. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the restriction. For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners and local law enforcement vessels will be in the vicinity of this zone to advise mariners of the restriction. Background and Purpose Boh Brothers Construction will be performing construction work on the Sanibel Island Bridge between November, 2006, and June, 2007. This work will involve setting girders, setting the deck, setting overhangs, placing resteel, pouring the bridge deck, and wrecking the old bridge's deck on the Sanibel Island Bridge span “C”. These operations will require placing a barge in the navigational channel. The nature of this work and the close proximity of the channel present a hazard to mariners transiting the area. This safety zone is being established to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States. Discussion of Rule The safety zone encompasses the following waters of San Carlos Bay, Florida: all waters from surface to bottom, within a 400 foot radius of the following coordinates: 26°27.416′ N, 082°02.083′ W. Vessels are prohibited from anchoring, mooring, or transiting within this zone, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or his designated representative. This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on November 1, 2006 through 9 p.m. on June 30, 2007. However, the safety zone will only be enforced from 6 a.m. until 9 p.m. on certain dates during that time, while construction operations are occurring. The Coast Guard does not know the exact dates of the construction operations at this time, but Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg will give notice of the enforcement of the safety zone by issuing Broadcast Notice to Mariners 24 to 48 hours prior to the start of enforcement. On-Scene notice will be provided by Coast Guard or other local law enforcement maritime units enforcing the safety zone as designated representatives of Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit near the Sanibel Island Bridge span “C” from 6 a.m. on November 1, 2006 through 9 p.m. on June 30, 2007. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will only be enforced when vessel traffic is expected to be minimal, additionally, traffic will be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or designated representative. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in understanding and participating in this rulemaking. We also have a point of contact for commenting on actions by employees of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(a)*Regulated area.* The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of San Carlos Bay, Florida, in the vicinity of the Sanibel Island Bridge span “C”. This safety zone includes all waters from surface to bottom, within a 400 foot radius extending from the center portion of span “C” at the following coordinates: 26°27′416″ N, 082°02′083″ W. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.

(b)*Definitions.* As used in this section. *Designated representative* means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg, Florida, in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas and safety and security zones.

(c)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may anchor, moor or transit the Regulated Area without the prior permission of the Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg, Florida, or his designated representative.

(d)*Dates.* This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on November 1, 2006, through 9 p.m. on June 30, 2007.

(e)*Enforcement period.* This regulated area will only be enforced during specific periods between the dates specified in paragraph (d). The Coast Guard does not know the exact dates of the construction operations at this time, however Sector St. Petersburg will announce each enforcement period by issuing Broadcast Notice to Mariners 24 to 48 hours prior to the start of enforcement. Additionally, on-scene notice will be provided by Coast Guard or other local law enforcement maritime units enforcing the safety zone. Dated: October 16, 2006. J.A. Servidio, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg, Florida. [FR Doc. E6-19679 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0390; FRL-8244-6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: In this direct final action, the EPA is approving the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles Traveled

(VMT)Offset Analysis. The Baton Rouge area became subject to this requirement upon its reclassification from serious to severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment. The State has satisfied the VMT Offset requirement by its demonstration that motor vehicle emissions from increases in VMT or number of vehicle trips within the Baton Rouge five county ozone nonattainment area will not rise above an established ceiling through 2005. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 182 of the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended (the Act). DATES: This direct final rule is effective on January 22, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by December 21, 2006. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0390, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • U.S. EPA Region 6 “Contact Us” Web site: *http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm* . Please click on “6PD” (Multimedia) and select “Air” before submitting comments. • E-mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs at *diggs.thomas@epa.gov* . Please also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. • Fax: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263. • Mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. • Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8am and 4pm weekdays except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0390. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30am and 4:30pm weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at

(214)665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Sandra Rennie at

(214)665-7367, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *rennie.sandra@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. Analysis of VMT Plan III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background What Is a VMT SIP? Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires states containing ozone nonattainment areas classified as severe, pursuant to section 181(a) of the Act, to adopt transportation control strategies and TCMs to offset increases in emissions resulting from growth in VMT or numbers of vehicle trips and to obtain reductions in motor vehicle emissions as necessary (in combination with other emission reduction requirements) to comply with the Act's Reasonable Further Progress milestones (section 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B)) and attainment demonstration requirements (section 182(c)(2)(A)). Our interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A) is discussed in the April 16, 1992, General Preamble to Title I of the Act (57 FR 13498, the General Preamble). Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires that states submit the VMT Offset SIP by November 15, 1992, for any severe and above ozone nonattainment area. The VMT Offset SIP became a requirement for the Baton Rouge area due to EPA's reclassification of the area from serious to severe on April 24, 2003 (68 FR 20077). How Is the VMT Offset Requirement Satisfied? The EPA General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13521-13523, April 16, 1992) explains how to demonstrate that the VMT requirement is satisfied. Sufficient measures must be adopted so projected motor vehicle volatile organic compound

(VOC)emissions will stay beneath a ceiling level established through modeling of mandated transportation-related controls. When growth in VMT and vehicle trips would otherwise cause a motor vehicle emissions upturn, this upturn must be prevented by TCMs. If projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one year are not higher than during the previous ozone season due to the control measures in the SIP, the VMT Offset requirement is satisfied. In order to make these projections, curves of vehicle emissions were modeled using mandated measures, along with VMT (please refer to Charts 1 and 2 in the Technical Support Document). Charts 1 and 2 each show significant declines in VOC emissions from on-road mobile sources during the 15-year period graphed for the offset analysis. The charts profile the effects of several factors that are affecting emissions simultaneously, including but not limited to:

(a)The “fleet turnover” effect derived from implementation of Federal motor vehicle control program (National Low Emission Vehicle and Tier 2/low sulfur gasoline);

(b)the nonattainment area's low enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and;

(c)either the sale and use of reformulated gasoline (Chart 1 only), or the continued sale and use of convention gasoline (Chart 2 only). 1 Also contributing to the decline in emissions growth is the fact that inventoried and projected VMT data has actually decreased slightly during the 1996-2005 time period by approximately two

(2)percent. 1 The use of Reformulated Gasoline

(RFG)in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area was suspended in July 2004 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the Court transferred the case and motion to stay to the D.C. Circuit. This offset analysis includes analyses of both RFG and conventional gas fuels scenarios. II. Analysis of VMT Plan What Does Louisiana's Demonstration Show? The March 22, 2005, VMT Offset Analysis SIP submittal includes a projection of the mobile source emissions and a VMT projection for Baton Rouge through 2005, the date by which the Baton Rouge area was to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. It contains a modeled scenario that includes the effects of reductions from the following mandated programs: federal motor vehicle control programs (Tier 2/Low Sulfur Gasoline Program Credits and National Low Emission Vehicle Credits), a low enhanced vehicle I/M program, and either reformulated gasoline or Federal 7.8 Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline (Charts 1 and 2, respectively). Results of Analysis The modeled curves satisfy the VMT Offset requirement as discussed in the General Preamble. Modeling at no time shows the emission estimates meeting or exceeding the lowest point in 2005. The VOC curves in these instances show that no true ceiling is established in this demonstration because there is no upward turn of the VOC curve to identify the lowest point. Because the curves do not turn upward, no TCMs are necessary to offset emissions from growth in VMT. Because there is no upturn in VOCs and no ceiling under which VOC emissions must remain, then no TCMs are required to keep emissions below any ceiling. III. Final Action EPA is approving Louisiana's VMT Offset Analysis SIP submitted by the State on March 22, 2005. The VMT Offset requirement is satisfied because projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one year are not higher than during the ozone season the year before due to the control measures in the SIP. We determined that Louisiana has adequately demonstrated that emissions from growth in VMT and number of vehicle trips will not rise above an established ceiling during the required timeframe. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this **Federal Register** publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on January 22, 2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by December 21, 2006. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, 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.* ). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.* , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the **Federal Register** . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the **Federal Register** . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 January 22, 2007. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: November 9, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. 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 T—Louisiana 2. The table in § 52.970(e) entitled, “EPA Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures,” is amended by adding to the end of the table a new entry for “Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis” to read as follows: § 52.970 Identification of plan.

(e)* * * EPA Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State Submittal/ effective date EPA approval date Explanation * * * * * * * Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area 03/22/05 11/21/06 [Insert FR page number where document begins]. [FR Doc. E6-19641 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0015; FRL-8244-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; TX; Revisions To Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; Volatile Organic Compound Control for El Paso, Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties and the Ozone Standard Nonattainment Areas of Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Houston/Galveston AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. SUMMARY: On September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56872), EPA published a direct final rule approving Texas State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revisions that pertain to regulations to control Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC)emissions from facilities in Texas. The direct final action was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comment. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comment by October 30, 2006, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** . EPA subsequently received a timely adverse comment on the direct final rule. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final approval. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56920). As stated in the parallel proposal, EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. DATES: The direct final rule published on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56872), is withdrawn as of November 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-6645; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *young.carl@epa.gov.* List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: November 14, 2006. Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.2270 published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 56872), which were to become effective on November 27, 2006, are withdrawn. [FR Doc. E6-19639 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED 41 CFR Part 51 RIN 3037-AA06 Adding New Military Resale Number Series AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (the Committee) has in its procurement program nonprofit agencies that sell products to military commissary stores for resale. The items sold are assigned to specific number series so that the nonprofit agencies, the Committee, and the military stores may identify the specific products. The number series are only used for identification of specific products sold in the military stores. These product numbers are internal only to the Committee, the nonprofit agencies, and the military commissaries. This proposed rule adds additional number series to the authorized series so that replacement products may have their own unique identifying numbers. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: The Committee office is located at Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information, contact Kimberly Zeich by telephone

(703)603-7740, or by facsimile at

(703)603-0030, or by mail at the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202-3259. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee's regulation at 41 CFR 51-6.4, Military Resale Commodities, requires military commissary stores and other military resale outlets to stock certain products in the Committee's program, which are identified by special military resale number series. 41 CFR 51-6.4 references number series 400-, 500-, 800-, 900- and 1000-series, with the 800-, 900-, and 1000-series being stocked exclusively and all series being stocked in as broad a range as practicable. Additional number series are required because the numbers cannot be re-used after being assigned to a product. The expansion of the number series will not expand the scope of the military resale products, rather it will allow for the effective administration and maintenance of the military resale program at its current level. This final rule adds series 300-, 1100- and 10,000- (10,000-10,999) to 41 CFR 51-6.4(b); series 0- (0-99), 200-, 300-, 600-, 700-, 1100-, 1200- (1200-9999), and 10000- (10000-10999) to 41 CFR 51-6.4(c)(2) to be stocked in as broad a range as practicable; series 300-, 1100-, and 10000- (10000-10999) to 41 CFR 51-6.4(c)(4); and series 300-, 1100- and 10,000- (10,000-10,999) to 41 CFR 51-6.4(d). *Executive Order 12866:* This agency has made the determination that this rule is not significant for the purposes of EO 12866. *Administrative Procedure Act:* The Committee finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that good cause exists to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This final rule simply adds numbers to a series of number that already exist. These series are internal to this agency and have no impact on nonprofit agencies not working in the military resale area. National Industries for the Blind, a central nonprofit agency in the Committee's program, requested these specific number series on behalf of the nonprofit agencies that participate in the military resale arena. The Defense Commissary Agency also asked the Committee to take this action. Since both the Federal and nonprofit agencies requested these number series, it is highly unlikely that there would be any adverse comments on this rule. Because this amendment is not a substantive change to the regulation, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(A), this rule of agency organization, procedure and practice is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment. The Committee also finds that the 30-day delay in effectiveness, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), is inapplicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. This final rule merely expands the series of item numbers for use in the military resale program. *Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 51-6 Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities. For the reasons set out in the preamble, Part 51-6 of Title 41, Chapter 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 51-6—PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 51.6 continues to read as follows: Authority: 41 U.S.C. 46-48c. 2. Revise § 51-6.4 (b), (c)(2), (c)(4), and

(d)to read as follows: § 51-6.4 Military resale commodities.

(b)Authorized resale outlets shall stock military resale commodities in as broad a range as practicable. Authorized resale outlets may stock commercial items comparable to military resale commodities they stock, except that military commissary stores shall stock military resale commodities in the 300-800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, and 10000- (10000-10999) series exclusively, unless an exception has been granted on an individual store basis for the stocking of comparable commercial items for which there is a significant customer demand.

(c)* * *

(2)Require the stocking in commissary stores of military resale commodities in the 0- (0-99), 200-, 300-, 400-, 500-, 600-, 700-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, 1200- (1200-9999), and 10000- (10000-10999) series in as broad a range as is practicable.

(4)Establish policies and procedures which reserve to its agency headquarters the authority to grant exceptions to the exclusive stocking of 300-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, and 10000- (10000-10999) series military resale commodities.

(d)The Defense Commissary Agency shall provide the Committee a copy of each directive which relates to the stocking of military resale commodities in commissary stores, including exceptions authorizing the stocking of commercial items in competition with 300-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, and 10000- (10000-10999) series military resale commodities. Dated: November 17, 2006. Patrick Rowe, Deputy Executive Director, Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. [FR Doc. E6-19664 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P 71 224 Tuesday, November 21, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Parts 55 and 81 [Docket No. 00-108-6] RIN 0579-AB35 Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program and Interstate Movement of Farmed or Captive Deer, Elk, and Moose; Petitions and Request for Comments AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petitions and request for comments; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: We are extending the comment period for our notice that announced the receipt of three petitions requesting that we delay implementation of, and reconsider provisions in, a recent final rule establishing a herd certification program and interstate movement restrictions for cervids to control the spread of chronic wasting disease. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 3, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dean E. Goeldner, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Ruminant Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;

(301)734-4916. Copies of the petitions are available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, *http://www.regulations.gov* , as described under ADDRESSES below. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0118 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • *Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:* Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 00-108-5, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 00-108-5. • *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 3, 2006, we published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 64650-64651, Docket No. 00-108-5) a document in which we announced the receipt of, and requested comments on, three petitions from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials, and the United States Animal Health Association. The petitions requested that APHIS delay the effective date of a recent final rule and reconsider several requirements of the rule. The final rule, published in the **Federal Register** on July 21, 2006 (71 FR 41682-41707, Docket No. 00-108-3), establishes a herd certification program and interstate movement regulations for farmed or captive cervids to help eliminate chronic wasting disease in the United States. We published a notice in the **Federal Register** on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 52983, Docket No. 00-108-4), delaying the effective date of the final rule until further notice. Comments on the petitions were required to be received on or before December 4, 2006. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. 00-108-5 until January 3, 2007, an additional 30 days from the original close of the comment period. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of November 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-19662 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 19 CFR Parts 101 and 122 [USCBP-2006-0091] Extension of Port Limits of Dayton, OH, and Termination of the User-Fee Status of Airborne Airpark in Wilmington, OH AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to amend Department of Homeland Security

(DHS)regulations pertaining to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) field organization by extending the geographic limits of the port of Dayton, Ohio, to include the Airborne Airpark in Wilmington, Ohio. The proposed extension of the port limits of Dayton, Ohio, is due to the closing of express consignment operations at Dayton International Airport, and the expansion of express consignment operations at Airborne Airpark, located in Wilmington, Ohio. The user-fee status of Airborne Airpark would be terminated. The proposed change is part of CBP's continuing program to more efficiently utilize its personnel, facilities, and resources, and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by *docket number* , by *one* of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number USCBP-2006-0091. • Mail: Border Security Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Submitted comments may also be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of Regulations and Rulings, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at

(202)572-8768. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Captain, Office of Field Operations, 202-344-2804. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. CBP also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Background CBP ports of entry are places (seaports, airports, or land border ports) designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security where CBP officers or employees are assigned to accept entries of merchandise, clear passengers where appropriate, collect duties, and enforce the various provisions of customs and related laws. To facilitate the various duties of CBP, the organizational structure of CBP must, from time to time, be amended to respond to changing demands of the importing/exporting community. There have been two express consignment operations in the Dayton area: Menlo Worldwide Forwarding/Emery at Dayton International Airport

(DAY)and Airborne Express at Airborne Airpark

(ILN)in Wilmington, Ohio. The Menlo Worldwide Forwarding/Emery operation is within the Port of Dayton at the north edge of the current port boundaries, and Airborne Airpark is southeast of the current boundaries in Wilmington, Ohio. UPS purchased Menlo Worldwide Forwarding, shut down the Emery operation at Dayton International Airport, and has moved the work to their hub located in Louisville, Kentucky. DHL Express

(USA)has purchased Airborne Express and has shut down the DHL operations in Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky Airport

(CVG)in Covington, Kentucky. DHL Express

(USA)is opening a new, much larger combined operation at Airborne Airpark. These changes in operations will result in an increase in the demand for CBP services at the Airborne Airpark. In response to these changes, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) by extending the port limits of the Port of Dayton to include the Airborne Airpark, which is currently listed as “Wilmington Airport” in the list of user-fee airports at 19 CFR 122.15(b) (note that the regulations currently refer to the airport as “Wilmington Airport” rather than the correct “Airborne Airpark”). If the proposed port limits are adopted, CBP would relocate the CBP Dayton Port office from its current location at the Dayton International Airport to a new location near the new DHL operation at Airborne Airpark. CBP would also establish an adequately sized secure storage facility in efficient proximity to Airborne Airpark. The proposed changes are intended to allow for continued efficient operation and supervision of CBP services at the DHL facility. Airborne Airpark is currently a user fee airport. CBP services at a user fee airport are not paid for out of appropriations from the general treasury of the United States. Instead, these services are provided on a fully reimbursable basis to be paid for by the airport on behalf of the recipients of the services. The airport pays for CBP services and then seeks reimbursement from the actual users of those services. If this proposal is adopted, the Commissioner of CBP would terminate the user fee status of Airborne Airpark and remove the listing “Wilmington Airport” from the user fee list in 19 CFR 122.15(b), because the facility would be included in the boundaries of the Port of Dayton. As a result of the termination of the user fee status of Airborne Airpark, the system of reimbursable fees for Airborne Airpark would be discontinued. This proposed change of status for Airborne Airpark from a user fee airport to inclusion within the boundaries of a port of entry would subject the airport to the passenger processing fee provided for at 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(5)(B). This fee is collected by CBP and paid into the United States treasury. CBP services would be paid for out of appropriations from the general treasury. Current Port Limits of Dayton, Ohio The current port limits of Dayton, Ohio, as described in Treasury Decision (T.D.) 76-77 of March 3, 1976, include the territory within the city limits of Dayton, Ohio, as well as the territory within the township limits of the adjacent townships of Butler, Harrison, Wayne, and Mad River, Ohio. Proposed Port Limits of Dayton, Ohio The proposed port limits for Dayton, as well as being expanded to include the Airborne Airpark, substitute geographic information that is readily identifiable by the public in lieu of sometimes difficult to locate township boundaries. The geographic limits of the Port of Dayton are proposed to be as follows: Beginning at the point where Federal Interstate Highway 75 crosses the Montgomery County—Miami County line; then west along the Montgomery County line to the point where Frederick Pike intersects the Montgomery County line; then south and east on Frederick Pike to the intersection with Dixie Drive; then south to Keowee Street, then south to Federal Interstate Highway 75 to the point where I-75 intersects the Montgomery County—Warren County line; then east along the county line (which becomes the Greene County—Warren County line) to the Clinton County line; then south along the Clinton County line to the intersection with Ohio State Route 350; then east on Route 350 to the intersection with Ohio State Route 73; then north and west on Route 73 to the intersection with U.S. Route 22; then west along Route 22 to U.S. Highway 68; then north and west on U.S. 68 to the intersection with U.S. Highway 35; then west and north on U.S. 35 to Interstate Highway 675; then north and east on I-675 to the intersection with Federal Interstate Highway 70; then west on I-70 to the intersection with the Montgomery County line; and then north and west along the Montgomery County line to the point of beginning. Proposed Amendment to the Regulations If the proposed port limits are adopted, the list of CBP ports of entry at 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) will be amended to reflect the new boundaries of the Dayton, Ohio, port of entry and “Wilmington Airport” will be deleted from the list of user-fee airports at 19 CFR 122.15(b). Authority This change is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C. 2, 66 and 1624. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 With DHS approval, CBP establishes, expands and consolidates CBP ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume of CBP-related activity in various parts of the country. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule also will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as it merely expands the limits of an existing port of entry. Accordingly, it is certified that this document is not subject to the additional requirements of the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Signing Authority The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) because this port extension is not within the bounds of those regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole authority. Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or his delegate). Dated: November 14, 2006. Michael Chertoff, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19631 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD07-06-187] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area; San Carlos Bay, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated navigation area

(RNA)on the waters of San Carlos Bay, Florida. The regulated navigation area

(RNA)is needed to minimize the risk of potential bridge allisions by vessels utilizing the main channel under span “A” (bascule portion) of the Sanibel Island Causeway Bridge and enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area and vehicles crossing over the bridge. This proposed rule would apply vessel traffic regulations to vessels in the RNA. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg, Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida 33606-3598. The Waterways Management Division maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ronaydee Marquez at Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg,

(813)228-2191, Ext. 8307. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD07-06-187), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On November 18, 2003, the Lee County Board of Commissioners issued an emergency declaration that conditions of the Sanibel Island Causeway Bridge posed an immediate threat to the safety of the traveling public. Immediate initial action was required to minimize the risk of potential bridge allisions of vessels utilizing the main channel under span “A” (bascule portion) and enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area and vehicles crossing over the bridge. The Coast Guard established an RNA (68 FR 68518, December 9, 2003) in the vicinity of the bridge from November 29, 2003, through November 28, 2004. On November 2, 2004, Sanibel County engineers reevaluated the Sanibel Island Bridge and determined that the bridge continued to pose a threat to the safety of the traveling public. The RNA was subsequently extended from November 28, 2004, to November 28, 2005 (69 FR 70374, December 6, 2004). In January 2006, the RNA was again made effective, this time until 8 a.m., January 7, 2007 (71 FR 11507, March 8, 2006). Repairs to the bridge are still on-going, and could take several years to complete. Therefore, this proposed rule would maintain a regulated navigation area in place from January 2007 to January 2008. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed regulated navigation area would encompass the main channel under the “A” span (bascule portion) of the Sanibel Island Causeway Bridge out to 100 feet on either side of the bridge inclusive of the main shipping channel. All vessels would be required to transit the area at no-wake speed. However, nothing in this proposed rule negates the requirement to operate at a safe speed as provided in the Navigation Rules and Regulations. A one-way traffic scheme would be imposed within the regulated navigation area. Overtaking would be prohibited. Tug and barge traffic would be allowed to transit the regulated navigation area at slack water only. Tugs with barges would be required to be arranged in a push-ahead configuration, with barges made up in tandem, or as a side tow. Tugs would be required to be of adequate horsepower to fully maneuver the barges. Stern towing would be prohibited except by assistance towing vessels, subject to certain conditions. Assistance towing vessels would be allowed to conduct stern tows when the disabled vessel being towed is less than or equal to 30 feet in length. For disabled vessels greater than 30 feet in length, assistance towing vessels would be allowed to use a towing arrangement in which one assistance towing vessel is in the lead, towing the disabled vessel, and another assistance towing vessel is astern of the disabled vessel. Side tows are also permitted. Assistance towing vessels would be required to be of adequate horsepower to maneuver the vessel under tow and may transit the RNA at slack water only. These proposed regulations would minimize the risk of potential bridge allisions by vessels utilizing the main channel under span “A” (bascule portion) of the Sanibel Island Causeway Bridge, and enhance the safety of vessels transiting the area and vehicles crossing over the bridge. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The Coast Guard bases this finding on the following: Vessels may still transit the area, the waterway is not a major commercial route, and the Coast Guard expects only modest delays due to the nature of the marine traffic that traditionally uses this waterway. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of San Carlos Bay. This proposed regulated navigation area would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessels may still transit the area; the waterway is not a major commercial route, and the Coast Guard expects only modest delays due to the nature of the marine traffic that traditionally uses the waterway. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this proposed rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits in paragraph (34)(g) because it is a regulated navigation area. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision whether this rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add new temporary § 165.T07-187 to read as follows: § 165.T07-187 Regulated Navigation Area, San Carlos Bay, Florida.

(a)*Regulated area.* The following area is a regulated navigation area (RNA): The waters bounded by the following points: NW Corner: 26°28′59″ N, 082°00′54″ W; NE Corner: 26°28′59″ N, 082°00′52″ W; SE Corner: 26°28′57″ N, 082°00′51″ W; SW Corner: 26°28′57″ N, 082°00′53″ W.

(b)*Regulations.*

(1)A vessel in the RNA established under paragraph

(a)of this section will operate at no-wake speed. Nothing in this rule is to be construed as to negate the requirement to at all times operate at a safe speed as provided in the Navigation Rules and Regulations.

(2)A one-way traffic scheme is established. Vessel traffic may proceed in one direction at a time through the RNA. Overtaking is prohibited.

(3)Tugs with barges must be arranged in a push-ahead configuration, with the barges made up in tandem, or as side tows. Tugs must be of adequate horsepower to maneuver the barges. Tug and barge traffic may transit the RNA at slack water only.

(4)Stern tows are prohibited except for assistance towing vessels, subject to certain conditions. Assistance towing vessels may conduct stern tows of disabled vessels that are less than or equal to 30 feet in length. For vessels that are greater than 30 feet in length, assistance towing vessels may use a towing arrangement in which one assistance towing vessel is in the lead, towing the disabled vessel, and another assistance towing vessel is astern of the disabled vessel. Side tows are also permitted. All assistance towing vessels operating within the regulated navigation area must be of adequate horsepower to maneuver the vessel under tow and the transit must be at slack water only.

(c)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to this section:

(1)*Assistance towing* means assistance provided to disabled vessels.

(2)*Assistance towing vessels* means commercially registered or documented vessels that have been specially equipped to provide commercial services in the marine assistance industry.

(3)*Disabled vessel* means a vessel, which, while being operated, has been rendered incapable of proceeding under its own power and is in need of assistance.

(4)*Overtaking* means a vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the stern light of the vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(5)*Slack water* means the state of a tidal current when its speed is near zero, especially the moment when a reversing current changes direction and its speed is zero. The term also is applied to the entire period of low speed near the time of turning of the current when it is too weak to be of any practical importance in navigation.

(6)*Vessel* means every description of watercraft, including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.

(d)*Violations.* Persons in violation of these regulations will be subject to civil penalty under 33 U.S.C. 1232 of this part, to include a maximum civil penalty of $32,500 per violation.

(e)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 8 a.m. on January 7, 2007, until 8 a.m. on January 6, 2008. Dated: October 31, 2006. D.W. Kunkel, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-19680 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0390; FRL-8244-7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Louisiana State Implementation Plan

(SIP)for the Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles Traveled

(VMT)Offset Analysis submitted to EPA on March 22, 2005. The Baton Rouge area became subject to this requirement upon its reclassification from serious to severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 182 of the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended (the Act). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Sandra Rennie at

(214)665-7367, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address *rennie.sandra@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is located in the rules section of this **Federal Register** . Dated: November 9, 2006. Richard E. Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. E6-19642 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse as Threatened or Endangered AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse ( *Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus* ) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the petition does not provide substantial information indicating that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a further status review in response to this petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse or threats to it. DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on November 21, 2006. Comments and information concerning this finding may be submitted until further notice. ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, and material concerning this finding may be submitted to the Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, WA 99206. The complete file for this finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Martin, Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above), by telephone at

(509)891-6839, or by facsimile to

(509)891-6748. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) (Act), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base the finding on information provided in the petition and supporting information available in our files at the time of the petition review. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish a notice of the finding promptly in the **Federal Register** . Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)with regard to a 90-day petition finding is “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. In making this finding, we evaluated information provided by the petitioners and contained in our files in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) is limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition provides “substantial information” that the petitioned action may be warranted. On October 18, 2004, we received a petition, dated October 14, 2004, from Forest Guardians, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, The Larch Company, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Oregon Natural Desert Association, and Western Watersheds Project (petitioners). The petitioners requested that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse be listed as threatened or endangered throughout its historic range in accordance with section 4 of the Act. We were required to complete a significant number of listing actions in 2005, pursuant to court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements, and were unable to address the petition at that time. On January 18, 2005, we acknowledged receipt of the petition, and indicated to the petitioners that we would not be able to address the petition at that time due to other priorities relating to court orders and settlement agreements. On November 25, 2005, we received a Notice of Intent to Sue (NOI), dated November 22, 2005, for our failure to make a 90-day finding on the petition. On April 5, 2006, we received a formal complaint, which had been filed on March 20, 2006. On May 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court of Idaho granted a Stipulated Settlement Agreement between us and the petitioners, wherein we agreed to publish a 90-day finding on the petition by November 15, 2006. This finding constitutes our compliance with the settlement agreement. Previous Federal Actions We previously received a petition, dated March 14, 1995, to list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout its historic range in the conterminous United States (Biodiversity Legal Foundation 1995). On October 26, 1999, we published a positive 90-day finding and initiated a status review to determine if listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was warranted (64 FR 57620). On October 11, 2000, we published a negative 12-month finding that determined the requested action was not warranted (65 FR 60391). Species Information The information summarized in this section is taken from the petition (cited as Forest Guardians *et al.* 2004) and our files. The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is one of seven recognized subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse that have been described in North America, based primarily on geographic variation in overall size, plumage coloration and patterning, and the broadly defined ecosystems occupied (Connelly *et al.* 1998, p. 3). The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is the smallest subspecies. It has darker gray plumage, more pronounced spotting on the throat, and narrower markings on the underside than other subspecies. Historically, the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's range extended westward from the continental divide in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado to northeastern California and eastern Oregon and Washington; southward to northern Nevada and central Utah; and northward through central and British Columbia. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur in a variety of habitats within the northwestern United States and Canada, including sagebrush-bunchgrass, meadow-steppe, mountain shrub, and riparian zones (Marks and Marks 1987, p. 40; Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 326). Various upland habitats, with a component of denser riparian or mountain shrub habitat to provide escape cover, are important to the subspecies from spring to fall (Saab and Marks 1992, p. 171; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 327-329). The availability of suitable wintering habitat, containing a dominant component of deciduous trees and shrubs, is also thought to be a key element to healthy Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 54-57; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 329-330). Male sharp-tailed grouse employ elaborate courtship displays in the spring to attract females to central dancing grounds, called leks. Established leks may be used for many years, although the exact dancing locations may shift position over time and smaller satellite leks often form in the vicinity of historic leks. Interacting clusters of leks in a local area are defined as lek complexes (Schroeder *et al.* 2000, p. 3). Due to social structures within a lek and other influences, such as exposure to predation, leks seldom support more than 25 males (Moyles and Boag 1981, pp. 1579-1580; Rodgers 1992, p. 104; Connelly *et al.* 1998, p. 8). The few dominant males at a lek's center account for the majority of successful mating attempts (Johnsgard 1973, p. 314; Bradbury and Gibson 1983, pp. 119-120). Male Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may also display and establish specific dancing sites at leks during other seasons (Johnsgard 1973, p. 312; Moyles and Boag 1981, p. 1576; Marks and Marks 1987, p. xii; McDonald 1998, pp. 38-39). Spring-to-fall home range sizes of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are relatively small, generally less than 2 square kilometers (km 2 ) (1.2 square miles (mi 2 )), and the areas used are usually in the vicinity of a lek. Females typically nest and rear their broods within 1.6 km (1 mi) of an active lek, although nesting more than 3 km (1.9 mi) from a lek has been recorded (Saab and Marks 1992, pp. 168-170; Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327). Seasonal movements to wintering areas from breeding grounds are typically less than 5 km (3.1 mi) (Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327), although movements of up to 20 km (12.4 mi) have been recorded (Meints 1991, p. 53). The overall annual survival rate of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is relatively low, and ranges from roughly 20 to 50 percent (WDFW 1995, p. 9; Connelly *et al.* 1998, p. 12). The area within 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of a lek is thought to be critical to the management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and this area should contain, or provide access to, suitable wintering habitats (Saab and Marks 1992, pp. 168-170; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 326-332). Because of their influence on the subspecies' demographics, leks (including the surrounding area) can be used as the basis for describing the hierarchical assemblages of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. These assemblages range from local populations (single leks to lek complexes), to regional populations (potentially interacting local populations occupying small geographic areas, such as a county), to metapopulations (potentially interacting regional populations occupying larger geographic areas). Various historical accounts indicate that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was once much more abundant throughout its range where suitable habitats occurred (Hart *et al.* 1950, pp. 8-9; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-22). Excessive hunting in the mid- to late 19th century is thought to have been a major contributing factor to the extirpation of some local populations and the initial reduction of the subspecies' range (Hart *et al.* 1950, p. 60). Beginning in the early 1900s, the conversion of native habitats for crop production and habitat degradation as a result of heavy livestock grazing are thought to be the primary factors in further population declines and range reductions (Hart *et al.* 1950, pp. 55-59; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, p. 25; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun *et al.* 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 28-31; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly *et al.* 1998, pp. 2-3). Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have been extirpated from California (circa 1920), Nevada (circa 1950), and Oregon (circa 1960) (Miller and Graul 1980, p. 20; Connelly *et al.* 1998, pp. 2-3). Past declines in the subspecies' abundance and distribution have isolated various extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. At large geographic scales (e.g., States, ecoregions), the overall distribution of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse appears to have changed little since the mid-1900s, and various sources have acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining accurate population estimates for the subspecies as a whole (Hart *et al.* 1950, p. 13; Rogers 1969, p. 42; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 18-19; Schroeder *et al.* 2000, pp. 2-3). However, when smaller geographic areas are considered, a general pattern of continued range reduction and population decline is apparent in a number of local and several regional populations from the mid-1900s to the present (Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; WDFW 1995, pp. 4-6; Ritcey 1995, pp. 2-4; Schroeder *et al.* 2000, pp. 4-8; Mitchell 1995, 1998; Hoffman 1995, 1998; Thier 1998; Chutter 1995). Based on the results from a 1979 questionnaire distributed to wildlife professionals throughout the subspecies' range, Miller and Graul (1980, p. 20) concluded that populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occupied less than 10 percent of their former range in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming; 10 to 50 percent in Colorado and Washington; and 80 percent or more in British Columbia. The following individual State and province discussions represent the most recent available information on populations by State and Canadian province. Each discussion initially summarizes information from our files, as well as the best estimates of recognized experts during a February 2000 interagency species status review meeting (USFWS 2000), and an independent report that addressed the viability of the various extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Bart 2000, pp. 5-10). The State and province discussions also summarize the current status of each State's hunting regulations relating to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Finally, the State and province discussions summarize new information presented in the petition or that has become available in our files since 2000. For consistency, estimates of the spring breeding population are reported for each area. In general, the estimates of fall population sizes, which include annual reproduction and exclude over-winter mortality, are roughly double that of spring breeding population estimates. *Colorado.* The information in this paragraph is taken from Mumma

(1999)and House (2000). The northwestern region of the State contains many interacting local populations with multiple leks that together constitute a distinct metapopulation. This metapopulation totaled roughly 5,000 birds in the spring breeding population in 2000. The metapopulation occurs primarily in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco Counties, and is continuous with local populations in south-central Wyoming (see following discussion under Wyoming). Mesa County, in west-central Colorado, may still harbor a remnant local population, but the last confirmed sightings of birds in this area are from around 1985. The State of Colorado maintains a fall hunting season in the northwestern region, with bag and possession limits of 2 and 4 birds, respectively. During the late 1990s, the annual State harvest estimate averaged 218 birds. The petition states that the metapopulation in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco Counties may have consisted of approximately 6,080 birds in approximately 2004, based on Hoffman

(2002)(pp. 34-35 of the petition). The petition also states that population estimates for Colorado (based on the average number of males per lek) fluctuated widely from 2000 to 2004. *Idaho.* Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is taken from Mallet (2000). The southeastern region of the State contains many interacting local populations with multiple leks, which constitute a distinct metapopulation that totaled, as of 2000, roughly 6,000 to 13,000 birds in the spring breeding population. This population occurs primarily south of Rexburg and east of Rupert, Idaho (Meints 1995, 1998), and is continuous with local populations in northern Utah (see following discussion under Utah). The upper Snake River region, including the Sand Creek and Tex Creek areas, harbored, as of 2000, roughly 600 birds in the spring breeding population (approximately 300 in each area). Birds from these two areas likely interact with one another and with the larger population in the southeastern region (Meints 1995, 1998). Washington and Adams Counties, in the west-central region, harbored, as of 2000, roughly 200 to 300 birds in the spring breeding population, which supports approximately 7 leks. This area is isolated from other regional populations. Translocation efforts began in the Shoshone Basin area of extreme south-central Idaho in 1992, and resulted in establishment of an isolated local population supporting at least three leks in 2000. This area may be continuous with a small population of reintroduced birds in northeastern Nevada (see following discussion under Nevada). The State of Idaho maintains a fall hunting season, with bag and possession limits of 2 and 4 birds, respectively. The available information indicates that roughly 3,000 birds are harvested annually from the southeastern and upper Snake River regions. The petition states that the Shoshone Basin population may have consisted of 200 to 400 birds in 2004 (pp. 29-31 of the petition). The petition also states that population estimates for Idaho (based on average number of males per lek) fluctuated widely from 1999 to 2004. *Montana.* Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is taken from McCarthy (2000). Two small local populations may still occur in the northwestern region of the State, one in Lincoln County near the international boundary with British Columbia, and one in Powell County. The Lincoln County area supported fewer than 20 birds on a single lek in the 2000 spring breeding population. From 1987 through 1991, and again in 1996 and 1997, the Lincoln County population was augmented with birds translocated primarily from central British Columbia (one effort included birds translocated from southeastern Idaho). The Powell County area supported fewer than 50 birds on a few leks in the 2000 spring breeding population. Based on the evaluation of a limited number of specimens, birds in the Powell County population show a greater morphological affinity to the plains subspecies ( *T. p. jamesi* ); however, these birds show a greater genetic affinity to the Columbian subspecies (Warheit and Schroeder 2003, p. 5). Therefore, the taxonomic status of this population remains in question. The two local Montana populations are isolated from one another and from other regional populations. During the early 1970s and again in 1980, limited efforts to reintroduce sharp-tailed grouse to the National Bison Range (roughly 50 km northwest of Missoula) were conducted with birds translocated from southeastern Idaho. It is unlikely that any of these birds or their offspring persisted in the area (Wood 1991, p. 6). The State of Montana does not have an open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The petition states that Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may have been extirpated in Montana by 2004 (p. 35 of the petition). *Nevada.* The information in this paragraph is taken from Morros

(1999)and Crawforth (2000). During the spring of 1999, 54 birds from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho were translocated to the Snake Mountains in Elko County. Census information from 2000 indicated there were roughly 20 to 40 birds remaining from this initial effort. No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in the State of Nevada. According to a source cited in the petition (Stiver *et al.* (2002), cited on p. 32 of the petition), 196 birds were reintroduced between 1999 and 2002. No additional population estimates were provided. This reintroduced local population may be continuous with reintroduced birds in south-central Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho). *Oregon.* The information in this paragraph is taken from Crawford and Coggins (2000). From 1991 through 1997, a total of 179 birds were translocated into Wallowa County in northeastern Oregon. Translocated birds originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho. Census information in 2000 indicated that roughly 15 to 30 individuals, supporting one or a few leks, existed in the spring breeding population in an area several miles from the initial release site. No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in the State of Oregon. According to a source cited in the petition (ODFW (2001), cited on p. 29 of the petition), an additional 33 birds were translocated in 2001, and the estimated population at that time was 80 birds. The petition, citing personal communication with C. Braun, states that translocation efforts in Oregon have likely failed and that the population appears to be extirpated from the State. *Utah.* The information in this paragraph is taken from Mitchell (2000). The northern region of the State contains numerous, interacting local populations with multiple leks, which constitute a distinct, interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 5,000 birds in the spring breeding population. This population is continuous with the population in southeastern Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho). The State of Utah reopened its hunting season in 1998, and, over the first 3 years, issued 663, 2-bird permits in a limited-entry hunt. The State harvest estimates for 1998, 1999, and 2000 were 201, 462, and 233 birds, respectively. The petition states that the Utah population (based on estimates of average number of males per lek) fluctuates widely from year to year, and may have declined by 50 percent over the 4-year period from 1998 through 2001 (pp. 33-34 of the petition). *Washington.* Except as noted, the information in this paragraph is taken from Schroeder

(2000)and Cawston (2000). Eight local populations occur in the north-central region of the State; four likely have multiple leks, and four consist of single or few leks (Schroeder *et al.* 2000, p. 98). In 2000, the overall estimate was approximately 860 individuals in the spring breeding population; the 2005 estimate was 578 individuals (Schroeder 2005, p. 16). Some minimal interaction may occur between a few local populations, while others are isolated. The Washington population is isolated from other regional populations. Recent genetic analyses indicate that the State population was likely experiencing inbreeding, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from other stable populations have been translocated to Washington to address this potential threat. The genetic analyses indicate that the birds in Washington may have a different genetic profile than other populations, and that they may currently be on a different evolutionary trajectory (Warheit and Schroeder 2001, p. 5) due to these genetic differences and their isolation from other populations. Because the genetic differences may result from isolation and inbreeding, translocation efforts are targeted at preserving any genetic uniqueness while increasing genetic diversity. During the spring of 1998, 1999, and 2000, translocation efforts were conducted to augment one of the remnant local populations in north-central Washington. Translocated birds originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and from one of the larger local populations in Washington. Additional translocation efforts were undertaken during the spring of 2005 and 2006, to augment three additional Washington populations (Hays 2006). Current plans call for a third consecutive year in 2007 to complete these augmentation efforts. Roughly half of the translocated birds for these efforts originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho, and the rest originated from the metapopulation in central British Columbia (see following discussion under British Columbia). The State of Washington has not had a hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse since 1988. According to the petition (p. 28), the total Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population in the State of Washington was estimated to be 618 birds in 2002. *Wyoming.* The information in this paragraph is taken from Kruse (1999). Available information indicates that one population exists in the south-central region of the State that consisted of roughly 100 to 500 birds in the spring breeding population and supported multiple leks in 2000. The population occurs in Carbon County and is continuous with the metapopulation in northwestern Colorado (see previous discussion under Colorado). No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in the State of Wyoming. The petition cites personal communication with T. Wooley (no affiliation given) that the Wyoming population may have totaled approximately 600 to 700 birds in 2004 (pp. 31-32 of the petition). *British Columbia, Canada.* The information in this paragraph is taken from M. Chutter, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch (1995). The central region of British Columbia (Fraser Plateau) contains numerous interacting local populations with multiple leks, which comprise a distinct interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 5,000 to 10,000 birds in the spring breeding population. The area directly south of Cranbrook (southeastern region) may contain one local population with a single to few leks. This population is isolated from other regional populations. The area south of Merritt to the Washington border (south-central region) contains individual birds or small flocks during the winter, with no breeding behavior (i.e., leks) apparent. British Columbia currently prohibits hunting of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in native grassland habitats (i.e., the southern portion of the subspecies' Provincial distribution). Accurate harvest estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout the remainder of the Province are not available. The petition cites Leupin's

(2002)estimate that the population in British Columbia may have consisted of approximately 10,100 birds in 2002, based on extrapolations of estimated densities across potentially suitable habitats (pp. 36-37 of the petition). Summary of Subspecies' Status Based on the best available scientific information in 2000, the rangewide estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's spring breeding population was approximately 22,500 to 35,500 individuals, with approximately 18,000 to 25,500 individuals occurring within the conterminous United States. This total population occupied approximately 79,500 km 2 (31,000 mi 2 ) rangewide, and approximately 38,500 km 2 (15,000 mi 2 ) within the conterminous United States, in 2000 (Bart 2000, p. 5). Currently, roughly 95 percent of all Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur within the 3 remaining metapopulations: In northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming; southeastern Idaho and northern Utah; and central British Columbia (Bart 2000, p. 8). By comparing information provided in the petition (pp. 30-37) with data we have in our files, we determined that the petition indicates that the metapopulation in northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming may have increased by roughly 25 percent between 2000 and 2004; the metapopulation in central British Columbia may have increased by roughly 5 percent during the same period; and the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and northern Utah may have increased slightly (no percentage estimate available). By comparing the available information in our files with information contained in the 2004 petition, the estimated minimum net increase in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance between 2000 and 2004 would be roughly 9 percent, both rangewide and within the conterminous United States, as indicated by the petition (Bart 2000, p. 8; pp. 30-37 of the petition). If we were to assume a worst case analysis, i.e., that there was no increase in areas occupied by the metapopulations, the total area occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, both rangewide and within the conterminous United States, may have decreased by less than 1 percent between 2000 and 2004 due to the possible extirpation of several discrete populations (Bart 2000, p. 8; p. 38 of the petition). These estimates of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are derived from data provided in the petition, and do not represent our estimates of trends. We and the petitioners acknowledge that reliable trends are not determinable from available data (Bart 2000, p. 8; pp. 31-35, 38 of the petition). The petition indicates that abundance estimates for several of the discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse fluctuate widely between years, and therefore the populations cannot be considered stable (pp. 31, 34-35 of the petition). However, species of prairie grouse, with intrinsically high reproductive potential and low survival, periodically undergo wide fluctuations in numbers (e.g., seasonally, yearly), as is demonstrated by spring versus fall population estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. This variability in abundance does not necessarily indicate instability in these species, but rather represents an inherent component of their life history strategy. Little documentation exists concerning possible ranges of natural seasonal or yearly variation in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations, so we are unable to provide estimates of fluctuations due to existing threats. The various survey methodologies and population indices used throughout the subspecies' range make it difficult to obtain accurate or consistent population estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 8). In some instances, apparent fluctuations in population abundance may be an artifact of the survey methodology used, survey effort expended, or reliance on variable population estimators. As indicated in the petition (pp. 31-35 of the petition), the available information does not reveal reliable trends (neither positive nor negative) in abundance for the larger metapopulations. Most of the small, isolated populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, i.e., populations outside the three metapopulations, may be extirpated within a decade or two due to existing threats and current management scenarios (Wisdom *et al.* 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p. 9). These discrete populations represent less than 1 percent of the area historically occupied, and 4 percent of the current occupied range. Three regional populations, including the Nespelem population in Washington, the west-central Idaho population, and the south-central Idaho and northern Nevada population, were stable in 2000 (Bart 2000, p. 9). The metapopulations of the subspecies have persisted for the last several decades with no discernable downward trend, and the available information indicates they may now be increasing, along with the habitats available to them (Bart 2000, p. 8). The available information indicates that the three metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are relatively secure, although conclusive data regarding recent trends in these populations appears to be lacking (Bart 2000, p. 8; petition pp. 31-35). Given the level of threat to these populations and ongoing conservation measures (e.g., translocations, habitat protection and restoration), (Bart 2000, p. 9-10) concluded that, in the near term (i.e., less than 100 years), the large metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse would likely remain stable or increase in abundance and area of occupied range. In addition, one small population is likely to remain stable in west-central Idaho (Bart 2000, p. 10). According to Bart (2000, pp. 9-10), the three metapopulations will likely also remain stable in the long term (i.e., 100 years), although the Utah portion of one of the metapopulations may experience some decline as a result of predicted future urban expansion in the Salt Lake City and Ogden metropolitan area. Of the smaller populations, only the west-central Idaho population is likely to remain stable, while the long-term outlook for reintroduced populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is uncertain (Bart 2000, p. 10). Threats Analysis In our determinations of whether to list a species, subspecies, or any distinct vertebrate population segment of these taxa under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we must consider the following five factors:

(A)The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;

(B)overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C)disease or predation;

(D)the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

(E)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above factors, either singly or in combination. The information presented in the petition with regard to the five factors established by the Act and the information in our files as it relates to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is considered below. A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range The petition (pp. 39-40) states that habitat destruction, primarily due to extensive agricultural development, is one of the main reasons for the decline of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's rangewide population, and that agriculture and other activities that result in habitat destruction (e.g., residential development) are continuing, or possibly increasing, within the subspecies' historic distribution. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are negatively impacted by loss of habitat and associated human disturbances, such as the introduction of pets, some of which (e.g., dogs) may prey upon or otherwise disturb local populations, and by potential increases in the abundance and distribution of certain natural predators, such as coyotes and ravens. The petition also states that habitat degradation, primarily due to excessive livestock grazing, contributed to past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse distribution and abundance, and that grazing and other activities (e.g., chemical and mechanical treatments, increases in nonnative invasive vegetation) continue to threaten the subspecies (pp. 40-43 of the petition). Threats from these activities mainly result from modifications to existing vegetation communities that make the sites less suitable, or unsuitable, for use by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. We concur with the petitioners that human influences are primarily responsible for the destruction and degradation of suitable habitats, resulting in declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance and occupied range. However, most large-scale habitat conversions within the subspecies' historic distribution took place during the early to mid-1900s (Hart *et al.* 1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun *et al.* 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly *et al.* 1998, pp. 2-3). Implementation of light or moderate grazing levels, or varied grazing systems, may maintain or improve forage conditions on range lands (Mattise *et al.* 1982, p. 131; Nielsen and Yde 1982, pp. 159-163), and do not necessarily adversely affect Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. The information provided in the petition and in our files does not further address actual grazing levels (e.g., livestock numbers, timing, duration) or grazing effects specific to the discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. We concur with the petitioners that conversion and degradation of suitable habitats within the subspecies' historic distribution continues. However, these impacts are occurring at much reduced rates compared to historic levels (see above). The petition did not provide any information that further quantifies or qualifies these potential ongoing impacts, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. Given the lack of information in the petition that further quantifies or qualifies habitat impacts, and the fact that the three metapopulations of the grouse are stable or increasing, we find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that the destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range threaten the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted. B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes The petition states that excessive hunting likely contributed to past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse distribution and abundance, and presents a discussion addressing whether contemporary hunting pressure may be additive or compensatory to natural mortality. The petition cautions that, under certain circumstances, excessive hunting pressure may result in population declines. The petition summarizes recent hunting seasons, bag limits, and potential adverse impacts from hunting in several U.S. States and in British Columbia, Canada. The petition also indicates that certain research activities (e.g., radio-marking) may make Columbian sharp-tailed grouse more susceptible to mortality factors (e.g., predation) (pp. 43-44 of the petition). We concur with the petitioners that excessive hunting pressure is partially responsible for past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance and occupied range, and that, under certain circumstances, contemporary hunting pressure may be additive to natural mortality. We also concur that various research activities may increase the risk of mortality to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However, current estimated harvest rates are not likely to adversely affect the metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the States with hunting seasons (Bart 2000, pp. 11-12). In addition, large metapopulations are not likely to be significantly impacted by various future research activities (capture, translocation, radio marking, genetic sampling) (Bart 2000, p. 11). The petition did not provide any information that further quantifies or qualifies the potential ongoing impacts of hunting or research, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. Therefore, we find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes threatens the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted. C. Disease or Predation The petition states that some Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations may carry heavy ectoparasite loads that could limit already stressed populations (pp. 44-45 of the petition). The petition also presents a discussion of the impacts of West Nile virus infection on greater sage-grouse ( *Centrocercus urophasianus* ), and indicates that this rapidly emerging disease may represent a significant threat to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, especially to the smaller, isolated populations of the subspecies. The petition indicates that human activities may have increased the vulnerability of some Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations to predation. No documentation exists that indicates disease or predation have played a significant role in the population declines and range reduction of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. We agree that West Nile virus could become a threat to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the future. However, there is currently no information available that addresses the potential occurrence, infection rates, or virulence of West Nile virus in the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, or its potential effects on extant populations of the subspecies. We also agree that episodes of disease and altered predation patterns may play a role in the dynamics of the smaller, isolated populations. The petition did not provide any information that quantifies or qualifies the potential impacts of disease or predation, or their specific effects, on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. Therefore, we find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that disease or predation threatens the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted. D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The petition asserts that we inappropriately relied on formal State conservation planning efforts in our previous 12-month finding that determined the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse did not warrant listing under the Act (65 FR 60391). The petition also provides summary assessments of formal State conservation planning efforts in Colorado, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming, and identifies U.S. Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)and U.S. Forest Service

(USFS)management designations for the subspecies (pp. 45-52 of the petition). Our previous determination was not based on the identified formal State and local working-group planning efforts; we considered them to be rudimentary planning efforts at that time (65 FR 60391). In addition, we specifically did not address these preliminary planning efforts under factor D, because they are non-regulatory in nature. Bart (2000, p. 7) indicated that:

(1)Implementation of these plans was uncertain;

(2)the plans provided no legally binding commitments; and

(3)the conservation measures prescribed by the plans did not have much impact on analyses addressing the viability of the various extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Other ongoing foreign, Federal, State, and local management measures contributing to conservation of the subspecies were identified in our previous status review. These management measures include habitat maintenance and enhancement (e.g., that provided through the Federal Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP)or through land acquisition and protection actions), reintroduction and augmentation programs, and State survey and monitoring initiatives. In accordance with section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we based our previous 12-month determination on the combined weight of the five threat factors and conservation benefits realized through ongoing management measures (65 FR 60391). The additional information provided in the petition that addresses the preliminary nature of formal State and local planning efforts does not substantiate that this is a factor that threatens the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted. We concluded above that State hunting regulations appear to be sufficient to control harvest levels of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (both legal and illegal) in States where they are hunted, and to avoid adverse impacts to the subspecies (see previous discussion under factor B). In addition, revegetation and reclamation standards under the CRP and Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act promote the improvement of habitat conditions for the subspecies' metapopulations. The petition (pp. 56-60) indicates that potential benefits provided by the CRP may be limited, especially considering that “emergency” haying and grazing are allowed on lands enrolled under the program. The new information referenced in the petition (Table 2, pp. 57-58) indicates that, on average, less than 10 percent of CRP acreage within the historic range of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be open to emergency grazing and haying on an annual basis. The petition also indicates that the CRP may expire in 2007, which may represent a significant threat to various Columbian sharp-tailed populations that have come to rely on these lands. The CRP has been authorized on a recurrent 10-year time frame since 1987, with subsequent “sign-ups” of eligible lands occurring after each reauthorization. While the available information does not conclusively demonstrate that the program will be continued in 2007 or beyond, it likewise does not indicate that it will be terminated or otherwise significantly altered under future reauthorizations. The available information does not address the actual extent of haying and grazing activities (e.g., livestock numbers, timing, duration) or potential effects to the subspecies under the haying and grazing provisions, and does not address other conservation implications of potential future changes to the CRP. Further, the metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are stable or improving in status, and there are approximately 22,500 to 35,500 birds. Because the status is stable, it is likely that threat levels are low enough in the metapopulation areas, such that regulatory mechanisms are not necessary to prevent declines. We find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms threatens the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence The petition presented discussions addressing potential adverse impacts to the extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from other influences, including the use of insecticides, reduced genetic fitness, drought and climate change, prescribed fire and fire suppression, other human-related disturbances (e.g., fences, increased noise), dependence on artificial habitats (e.g., lands enrolled under the CRP), and utility lines and roads (pp. 44-52). We concur with the petitioners that some of the other threats identified in the petition (e.g., insecticide use, reduced genetic fitness, fire management, other human-related disturbances) may impact local populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However, the three metapopulations and the larger regional populations have persisted in the presence of these ongoing factors for decades. Because metapopulations are more resilient to localized impacts, these factors, either singly or in combination, are not expected to significantly affect future trends in the overall status of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 10). Other possible future threats identified in the petition (e.g., climate change, extended drought) have the potential to impact the three metapopulations and the larger regional populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The petition provides speculation (p. 55 of the petition) that temperature increases in combination with altered precipitation could cause changes in species composition and habitat. While a petition does not have to provide conclusive evidence, we find that substantial evidence requires more than speculation. No additional information regarding how these potential threats may affect Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, now or in the future, is contained in our files. We find that the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that other natural or human-caused factors threaten the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under the Act may be warranted. Significant Portion of the Range The petition states that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is absent from 92 to 95 percent of its historic distribution (p. 52 of the petition), and claims that this area represents a significant portion of the subspecies' range. We concur with the petitioners that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse currently occupies less than 10 percent of its estimated historic distribution (Bart 2000, p. 8), and that most of the subspecies' small, isolated populations may be extirpated within 10 to 20 years due to existing threats and current management scenarios (Wisdom *et al.* 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p. 9). However, range contractions by themselves do not relegate species to certain extinction or suggest that the species require protections under the Act. Nearly all species have experienced range contractions due to anthropogenic effects. While for many species even small range contractions are incompatible with recovery, reduction in a species' range or population numbers does not automatically suggest that the species is in peril, sometimes even when the reduction appears significant. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population core areas, where 95 percent of the grouse have occurred for the last 50 years or more, have remained relatively constant, with recent slight increases (Bart 2000, pp. 8-10). Most broad-scale impacts to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse ( *e.g.* , loss and degradation of suitable habitats, over-hunting) that led to past declines in the subspecies' abundance and distribution took place during the late 1800s through the mid-1900s (Hart *et al.* 1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun *et al.* 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly *et al.* 1998, pp. 2-3). The petitioner concludes that lack of proactive management by State and Federal agencies will allow the species to fade into extinction (p. 61 of the petition); however, available information shows that hunting is either regulated or not authorized in all States with populations, and reintroduction actions are ongoing. The subspecies remains stable in three metapopulations, and no current data indicates declining trends. The petition does not provide substantial information suggesting that the portion of the range where the subspecies no longer occurs is significant to the long-term persistence of the subspecies. In addition, while in general we are concerned with the continued loss of range and the potential contribution small populations may play in a species' recovery, the petition does not present substantial information that the small, islolated populations that may be extirpated in a few decades constitute a significant portion of the range. We made this determination based on a combination of factors. First, the extent of habitat outside the three metapopulations is small relative to the overall range of the subspecies, roughly 4 percent of the subspecies' current occupied range. Second, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that the small, isolated populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are genetically, behaviorally, or ecologically unique, or that they contribute individuals to other geographic areas through emigration. Finally, there is no scientific evidence suggesting that these habitats are important to the survival of the species because of any unique contribution to the species' natural history, *e.g.* , for reasons such as feeding, migration, or wintering. Finding We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition, and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent information available in our files. The two main causes for historic declines of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse,

(1)loss and degradation of habitats and

(2)over-hunting, occurred in the early 1900s. At present, these factors occur at much reduced levels, or not at all, within the areas currently occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. The subspecies' metapopulations have persisted for the last several decades with no discernable downward trend, and recent information indicates they may now be increasing, along with the habitats available to them (Bart 2000, p. 9). After review of the best scientific and commercial information available, we conclude that substantial information has not been presented to indicate that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted. Although we are not commencing a new status review in response to this petition, we will continue to monitor the subspecies' population status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions that might affect the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that will assist with conservation of the subspecies. If you wish to provide information regarding the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, you may submit your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above). References Cited A complete list of all references cited herein is available on request from the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above). Author The primary author of this notice is Chris Warren of the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above). Authority The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: November 13, 2006. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-19681 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P 71 224 Tuesday, November 21, 2006 Notices ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION Public Meeting AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold a public meeting on December 5, 2006. The purpose of the meeting is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to deliberate on possible recommendations regarding the antitrust laws to Congress and the President. DATES: December 5, 2006, 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Registration is not required. ADDRESSES: Federal Trade Commission, Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission: telephone:

(202)233-0701; e-mail: *info@amc.gov.* Mr. Heimert is also the Designated Federal Officer

(DFO)for the Antitrust Modernization Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to deliberate on its report and/or recommendations to Congress and the President regarding the antitrust laws. Deliberation will cover potential recommendations relating to the application of antitrust in regulated industries, the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”), and antitrust in the “new economy.” The Commission may conduct additional business as necessary. Materials relating to the meeting will be made available on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.amc.gov* ) in advance of the meeting. The AMC has called this meeting pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, § 11054(f), 116 Stat. 1758, 1857; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., § 10(a)(2); 41 CFR 102-3.150 (2005). Dated: November 16, 2006. By direction of Deborah A. Garza, Chair of the Antitrust Modernization Commission. Approved by Designated Federal Officer: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission. [FR Doc. E6-19653 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. *Title:* Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0648-0214. *Type of Request:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 2,436. *Number of Respondents:* 220. *Average Hours Per Response:* Logbook forms, 5 minutes; notifications, 1 minute; observer placement meetings, 1 hour; and claim for reimbursement, 4 hours. *Needs and Uses:* The fishermen in Federally-managed fisheries in the western Pacific region are required to provide certain information about their fishing activities. These data are needed to determine the condition of the stocks and whether the current management measures are having the intended effects, to evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and to monitor and respond to accidental takes of endangered and threatened species, including seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. This action seeks to renew Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)clearance for this collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Mandatory. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number

(202)395-7285, or *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: November 16, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-19667 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce. *Title:* National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Information Collection System. *Form Number(s):* None. *OMB Approval Number:* 0693-0003. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Burden Hours:* 2,225. *Number of Respondents:* 850. *Average Hours Per Response:* 2 hours, 37 minutes. *Needs and Uses:* This information is collected from all testing and calibration laboratories that apply for National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accreditation. It is used by NVLAP to assess laboratory conformance with applicable criteria as defined in 15 CFR Part 285, Section 285.14. The information provides a service to customers in business and industry, including regulatory agencies and purchasing authorities that are seeking competent laboratories to perform testing and calibration services. An accredited laboratory's contact information and scope of accreditation are provided on NVLAP's Web site ( *http://www.nist.gov/nvlap* ). *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations, not-for-profit institutions, and Federal, State or Local government. *Frequency:* Annually. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* Jasmeet Seehra,

(202)395-3123. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer,

(202)395-5167, or *Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov* ). Dated: November 16, 2006. Gwellnar Banks, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-19668 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP)Waves 10, 11, and 12 of the 2004 Panel ACTION: Proposed Collection; Comment Request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *DHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Patrick J. Benton, Census Bureau, Room HQ-6H045, Washington, DC 20233-8400,

(301)763-4618. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Abstract The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to extend the expiration date for the 2004 Panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP)to February 28, 2008. This will provide the time necessary to conduct the Wave 10, 11, and 12 interviews for the 2004 Panel of the SIPP. The interviews will include the core SIPP, which has already been approved by OMB under Authorization No. 0607-0905. Due to budget constraints, there are no topical modules for the Wave 10, 11, and 12 interviews. The Census Bureau conducts the SIPP which is a household-based survey designed as a continuous series of national panels. New panels are introduced every few years with each panel usually having durations of one to five years. Respondents are interviewed at 4-month intervals or “waves” over the life of the panel. The survey is molded around a central “core” of labor force and income questions that remain fixed throughout the life of the panel. The SIPP represents a source of information for a wide variety of topics and allows information for separate topics to be integrated to form a single, unified database so that the interaction between tax, transfer, and other government and private policies can be examined. Government domestic-policy formulators depend heavily upon the SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on this distribution. They also need improved and expanded data on the income and general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population. The SIPP has provided these kinds of data on a continuing basis since 1983 permitting levels of economic well-being and changes in these levels to be measured over time. The 2004 Panel is currently scheduled for 4 years and will include 12 waves of interviewing, which began in February 2004. Approximately 62,000 households were selected for the 2004 Panel, of which, 46,500 were interviewed, yielding approximately 97,650 interviews. Due to budget constraints we are limiting the sample for the 2004 Wave 10, 11, and 12 interviews to 21,292 households per wave. We estimate that each of these households will contain 2.1 people 15 years of age or older, yielding 44,713 interviews in each Wave. Interviews take 20 minutes on average. The total annual burden for 2004 Panel SIPP interviews will be 44,266 hours through January 2008. Wave 10, 11, and 12 interviews will be conducted from February 2007 through January 2008. A 10-minute reinterview of 1,064 people is scheduled to be conducted during Waves 10, 11, and 12 to ensure the accuracy of responses. Reinterviews will require an additional 533 burden hours through February 2008. II. Method of Collection The SIPP is designed as a continuing series of national panels of interviewed households that are introduced every few years with each panel having durations of 1 to 5 years. All household members 15 years old or over are interviewed using regular proxy-respondent rules. During the 2004 Panel, respondents are interviewed a total of 12 times (12 waves) at 4-month intervals making the SIPP a longitudinal survey. Sample people (all household members present at the time of the first interview) who move within the country and reasonably close to a SIPP primary sampling unit will be followed and interviewed at their new address. Individuals 15 years old or over who enter the household after Wave 1 will be interviewed; however, if these individuals move, they are not followed unless they happen to move along with a Wave 1 sample individual. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0607-0905. *Form Number:* SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument. *Type of Review:* Regular. *Affected Public:* Individuals or Households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 134,139 people during Waves 10, 11, and 12. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 20 minutes per person on average. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 44,799. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* The only cost to respondents is their time. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, Section 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(CPRS)ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dhynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Michael Davis, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 2125, Building #4, Washington, DC 20233-6900,

(301)763-1605, (or via the Internet at *michael.davis@census.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Abstract The Census Bureau plans to request a three year extension of a currently approved collection for forms C-700, Private Construction Projects; C-700(R), Multifamily Residential Projects; and C-700(SL), State and Local Government Projects. These forms are used to conduct the Construction Progress Reporting Surveys

(CPRS)to collect information on the dollar value of construction put in place on building projects under construction by private companies or individuals, private multifamily residential buildings, and on building projects under construction by state and local governments. The Census Bureau is the preeminent collector and provider of timely, relevant and quality data about the people and economy of the United States. Economic data are the Census Bureau's primary program commitment during nondecennial census years. The Form C-700, Private Construction Projects collects construction put in place data for nonresidential projects owned by private companies or individuals. The Form C-700(R), Multifamily Residential Projects collects construction put in place data for private multifamily residential buildings. Form C-700(SL), State and Local Government Projects, collects construction put in place data for state and local government projects. The Census Bureau uses the information from these surveys to publish the value of construction put in place series. Published estimates are used by a variety of private business and trade associations to estimate the demand for building materials and to schedule production, distribution, and sales efforts. They also provide various governmental agencies with a tool to evaluate economic policy and to measure progress towards established goals. For example, Bureau of Economic Analysis staff use data to develop the construction components of gross private domestic investment in the gross domestic product. The Federal Reserve Board and the Department of Treasury use the value in place data to predict the gross domestic product, which is presented to the Board of Governors and has an impact on monetary policy. II. Method of Collection An independent systematic sample of projects is selected each month according to predetermined sampling rates. Once a project is selected it remains in the sample until completion of the project. Preprinted forms are mailed monthly to respondents to fill in current month data and any revisions to previous months. Some respondents are later called by a Census Bureau interviewer and report the data over the phone. We use a computer-assisted interview process identified as Call Scheduler. This is part of a database system that not only alerts the Census interviewer to call a respondent at a predetermined date and time, but also allows them to enter responses on-line at which time the data are electronically edited for accuracy and consistency. Having the information available from a database at the time of the interview greatly helps reduce the time respondents spend on the phone. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0607-0153. *Form Number:* C-700, C-700(R), C-700(SL). *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Individuals, Businesses or Other for Profit, Not-for-Profit Institutions, Small Businesses or Organizations, and State or Local Governments. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* C-700 = 8,500. C-700(R) = 2,500. C-700(SL) = 8,500. TOTAL = 19,500. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 15 minutes per month. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* C-700 = 25,500. C-700(R) = 7,500. C-700(SL) = 25,500. TOTAL = 58,500. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* 3.8 million. *Respondent's Obligation:* Voluntary. *Legal Authority:* Title 13, United States Code, Section 182. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: November 16, 2006. Madeleine Clayton, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-19671 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board Order No. 1489 Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 231, Stockton, California, Area Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Stockton Port District, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 231, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 231-Site 2 to include additional acreage and to expand the zone to include additional sites in Stockton and Tracy, California, within and adjacent to the San Francisco/Oakland/Sacramento Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 25-2006; filed 6/14/06); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment was given in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 35610, 6/21/06) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and, *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand FTZ 231 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project. Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of November 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board Attest: Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19665 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1488] Approval for Expansion of Subzone 149C, ConocoPhillips Company(Oil Refinery), Sweeny, Texas Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District (Port Freeport), grantee of FTZ 149, has requested authority on behalf of ConocoPhillips Company (COP), to expand the scope of manufacturing activity conducted under zone procedures within Subzone 149C at the COP refinery in Sweeny, Texas (FTZ Docket 9-2006, filed 3/6/2006); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 13077, 3/14/2006); *Whereas* , the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the application would be in the public interest if approval is subject to the conditions listed below; *Now, therefore* , the Board hereby orders: The application to expand the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 149C, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Foreign status (19 CFR § 146.41, 146.42) products consumed as fuel for the petrochemical complex shall be subject to the applicable duty rate. 2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR § 146.41) shall be elected on all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that non-privileged foreign

(NPF)status (19 CFR § 146.42) may be elected on refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings #2709.00.10, #2709.00.20, #2710.11.25, #2710.11.45, #2710.19.05, #2710.19.10, #2710.19.45, #2710.91.00, #2710.99.05, #2710.99.10, #2710.99.16, #2710.99.21 and #2710.99.45 which are used in the production of: -petrochemical feedstocks (examiners report, Appendix “C”); -products for export; -and, products eligible for entry under HTSUS #num; 9808.00.30 and#num; 9808.00.40 (U.S. Government purchases). Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of November 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. Attest: Pierre V. Duy, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19663 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Foreign Fishing Vessels Operating in Internal Waters AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before January 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at *dHynek@doc.gov* ). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Robert Dickinson, 301-713-2276 or *Bob.Dickinson@noaa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Foreign fishing vessels engaged in processing and support of U.S. fishing vessels within the internal waters of a State, in compliance with the terms and conditions set by the authorizing governor, are required to report the tonnage and location of fish received from U.S. vessels. This reporting is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The weekly reports are submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator to allow monitoring of fish received by foreign vessels. II. Method of Collection Reports may be submitted by fax or e-mail. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0648-0329. *Form Number:* None. *Type of Review:* Regular submission. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 6. *Estimated Time per Response:* 30 minutes per weekly response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 36. *Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public:* $72. *IV. Request for Comments* *Comments are invited on:*

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(JHT)Opportunities for Transfer of Research and Technology Into Tropical Cyclone Analysis and Forecast Operations,” which was originally announced in the **Federal Register** on June 12, 2006. This notice is being reopened to permit a wider range of applications and revised proposals and to more fully explain the application process for federal applicants. The solicitation period is reopened from November 21, 2006 to December 6, 2006. DATES: Proposals must be received by the NOAA no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, December 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Full proposal packages should be submitted through the *http://grants.gov/Apply* Web site. For those without internet access and for applications from U.S. Federal agencies, hard copy proposals should be addressed to Dorothy Fryar, DOC/NOAA, Office of Weather & Air Quality Research, Routing Code R/WA, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11445, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Gaynor, DOC/NOAA, Office of Weather & Air Quality Research, Routing Code R/WA, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11229, Silver Spring, MD 20910, phone

(301)713-0460 ext. 117, e-mail *John.Gaynor@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOAA publishes this notice to reopen the solicitation period on the “Joint Hurricane Testbed

(JHT)Opportunities for Transfer of Research and Technology Into Tropical Cyclone Analysis and Forecast Operations,” which was originally announced in the **Federal Register** on June 12, 2006 (71 FR 33897). That solicitation called for researchers to submit proposals to test and evaluate, and modify if necessary, in a quasi operational environment, their own scientific and technological research applications. The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAA's mission support goal of: Weather and Water—Serve Society's Needs for Weather and Water Information. This notice is being published to reopen the solicitation period to obtain a wider range of full proposal applications and to more fully explain the application process for Federal agencies. Revised full proposals are permitted. The solicitation period is reopened from October 31, 2006 to 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), December 6, 2006. Full proposals received between October 31, 2006 and November 21, 2006 will be considered timely and be given full consideration. Please note that the June 12, 2006 solicitation provided applicants the opportunity to submit a Letter of Intent to obtain feedback from NOAA on their full proposals. This opportunity is no longer available. NOAA is soliciting only full applications through this reopening notice. NOAA also desires to clarify that applicants from Federal agencies cannot submit their applications on Grants.gov, but must send in their applications to the address and according to the instructions below. In addition, all applicants must list other current and pending Federal funding sources. If there are none, then that must be indicated. For Federal applicants, this should be interpreted as other Federal agency sources such as through MOUs, other contractual arrangements, or competitive awards. For all applicants (excluding Federal applicants) who submit applications through Grants.gov, a date and time receipt indication is included and will be the basis of determining timeliness. Also, applications submitted through Grants.gov must include a title page with appropriate signatures (see instructions below) scanned and electronically submitted. For Federal applicants and those applicants without internet access, hard copy proposals will be date and time stamped when they are received in the program office. Applications received after that time will not be reviewed. All other requirements in the June 12, 2006 solicitation for this program remain the same. For the convenience of applicants, NOAA republishes the application and submission process for the Joint Hurricane Testbed Program. This information, and other relevant information about the program, is currently available in the Federal Funding Opportunity document at Grants.gov Application and Submission Information

(a)The proposal must include a title page signed by the PI(s) and the appropriate representatives(s) of their home institution(s). Each PI and institutional representative should be identified by full name, title, organization, telephone number, mailing address, and e-mail address.

(b)A one-page abstract must be included and must contain a brief summary of the proposed work to be completed. The abstract must appear on a separate page, headed with the proposal title and the name(s) of the PI(s) and their home institution(s).

(c)All proposals must provide a Statement of Work that includes:

(1)The proposed duration of the project, from one to two years;

(2)A brief description of the project, with prior research results (including references) to demonstrate sufficient maturity and potential for a successful transition to operations at TPC/NHC and other operational forecast centers (e.g., CPHC, JTWC) and/or, if applicable, at a numerical weather prediction center;

(3)A proposed work plan for the project, including hardware and software needs, the testing and evaluation approach, metric(s) for success, project deliverables, a timeline with key milestones, real-time operational data needed as input, and a plan to port necessary codes to the operational environment of TPC/NHC and/or NCEP Central Operations (NCO). An overview of the JHT and TPC/NHC operational IT environments can be obtained from the JHT Web site: *http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/jht/tpc_JHT_IT_structure_june06.pdf* . For applicants without Internet access, this information can be obtained by contacting: Dr. Jiann-Gwo Jiing, Director, Joint Hurricane Testbed, Tropical Prediction Center, 11691 SW. 17th Street, Miami, FL 33165, phone

(305)229-4443, or via e-mail at *Jiann-Gwo.Jiing@noaa.gov.* Final work plans for approved projects will be reached by agreement between the PI and the JHT Director;

(4)A time line for delivering scientific and technical documentation and training materials over the course of the project that are sufficient to enable testing and evaluation of the proposed techniques. If the proposal is funded, researchers are expected to coordinate with the JHT Director to formalize this timeline;

(5)Schedule and needs for expected travel. PIs are strongly encouraged to plan and budget during each year of the project to describe their work at the annual Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference (IHC), sponsored by the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research. Additionally, visits by PIs and/or their support staff to the TPC/NHC, and any other operational center(s) as necessary, may be beneficial for training JHT staff and the forecaster and technical point(s) of contact in preparation for project testing and evaluation; and

(6)Estimates of JHT staff requirements in terms of on-site (or off-site) JHT facilitator efforts, and estimated computational, communication, and/or display requirements at the researcher's home institution and/or at JHT via remote access and data transfer.

(d)All applicants must submit a budget that includes PI and scientific and technical support staff salaries, JHT facility requirements, computing and communications funding, equipment funding (provide justification), indirect charges, and travel. Note that funding for secretarial support and IT improvements at the PI's home institution is not generally available. Non-federal applicants must use Standard Form 424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs that is contained in the standard NOAA Grants and Cooperative Agreement Application Package.

(e)Non-federal applicants must submit additional forms included in the standard NOAA Grants and Cooperative Agreement Application Package (see section IV.A above).

(f)An abbreviated Curriculum Vita for the PI must be included. Reference lists should be limited to all publications in the last three years with up to five other relevant papers.

(g)Current and pending Federal support: Each investigator must submit a list that includes project title; supporting agency with grant number, investigator months, dollar value and duration. Requested amounts should be listed for pending Federal support.

(h)Additional proposal requirements include:

(1)For applications submitted in hard copy, one signed original and two additional hard copies of the complete proposal must be submitted. Submission of an electronic copy in PDF format of the proposal document via the *http://grants.gov/Apply* Web site (abstract, Statement of Work, and budget) is strongly encouraged to facilitate the review process.

(2)Each proposal must be dated and contain page numbers;

(3)Items b and c above must be contained within no more than ten pages, using a 12-point font and one-inch margins. Limitation of Liability In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Applicants are hereby given notice that funding for the Fiscal Year 2007 program is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations. Universal Identifier Applicants should be aware they are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002, **Federal Register** , (67, FR 66177) for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet at *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com.* *Intergovernmental Review* : Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Funding Restrictions:* None. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/,* including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf* , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm* Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist ( *e.g.* , the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. The Department of Commerce Preaward Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as amended by the **Federal Register** notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109), are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/ Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: November 16, 2006. Mark E. Brown, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E6-19650 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 102306B] Marine Mammals; File No. 116-1843 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Sea World, Inc., 7007 Sea World Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821 [Brad Andrews, Responsible Party] has been issued a permit to import three beluga whales ( *Delphinapterus leucas* ) for public display. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Kate Swails, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 33281) that a request for a public display permit to import three male beluga whales from Marineland of Canada in Ontario, Canada to Sea World of Florida in Orlando, Florida had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.* ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216). In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), an environmental assessment was prepared analyzing the effects of the permitted activities. After a Finding of No Significant Impact, the determination was made that it was not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement. Dated: November 14, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19651 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 110606C] Endangered Species; File No. 1578 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Maine Department of Marine Resources

(MDMR)(Gail S. Wippelhauser, Principal Investigator), 21 State House Station, Augusta, ME, 04333 has been issued a permit to take shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ) for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9300; fax (978)281-9394. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails or Malcolm Mohead, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 16, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 34896) that a request for a scientific research permit to take shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Researchers will capture 500 sturgeon annually from the Kennebec River using gillnets. Sturgeon will be measured, weighed, tissue sampled, Passive Integrated Transponder tagged, and released. A sample of sturgeon will be acoustic tagged. Researchers will also sample for eggs and larvae. The permit is issued for five-years. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit

(1)was applied for in good faith,

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: November 15, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-19652 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 07-05] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM,

(703)604-6575. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-05 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology. Dated: November 14, 2006. C.R. Choate, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-M EN21NO06.000 EN21NO06.001 EN21NO06.002 EN21NO06.003 EN21NO06.004 [FR Doc. 06-9297 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 43

Traces to 43 documents

CFR