Notices. Notice

22,457 words·~102 min read·/register/2006/12/15/06-9739

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

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on

(240)276-1243. Proposed Project: National Outcome Measures

(NOMs)for Consumers Receiving Mental Health Services—NEW The mission of SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services

(CMHS)is to treat mental illnesses by promoting mental health and by preventing the development or worsening of mental illness when possible. Congress created CMHS to bring new hope to adults who have serious mental illnesses and to children with serious emotional disorders. The purpose of this proposed data activity is to promote the use of consistent measures among CMHS grantees and contractors funded through the Program of Regional and National Significance

(PRNS)and Children's Mental Health Initiative

(CMHI)budget lines. The common National Outcome Measures recommended by CMHS are a result of extensive examination and recommendations, using consistent criteria, by panels of staff, experts, and grantees. Wherever feasible, the proposed measures are consistent with or build upon previous data development efforts within CMHS. This activity will be organized to reflect and support the domains specified for SAMHSA's NOMs. The use of consistent measurement for specified outcomes across CMHS-funded projects will improve the ability of SAMHSA and CMHS to respond to the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA)and the Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool

(PART)evaluations. A separate data collection form will be used for adults and children but will be parallel in design. NOMs data will be collected at baseline with a periodic reassessment being conducted at either three or six months for as long as the client remains in treatment. Programs have selected either a three or six month reassessment interval based on their treatment protocol. The proposed data collection will cover eight of the ten domains in NOMs. The Cost-Effectiveness and Evidence-Based Practices domains are under development. Completion of these domains will require input from other sources and is anticipated for Summer 2007. Domain Adult Source Number of items Child Source Number of items Access/Capacity SAMSHA Standardized Question 4 SAMSHA Standardized Question 4 4 Functioning Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) 8 Youth Services Survey for Families (YSS-F) 6 Stability in Housing SAMSHA Standardized Question 1 SAMSHA Standardized Question 2 2 Education and Employment SAMSHA Standardized Question 3 SAMSHA Standardized Question 2 2 Crime and Criminal Justice SAMSHA Standardized Question 1 SAMSHA Standardized Question 1 1 Perception of Care MHSIP 14 YSS-F 13 Social Connectedness MHSIP 4 YSS-F 4 Retention 1 SAMSHA Standardized Question 1 SAMSHA Standardized Question 1 Total Number 36 33 1 Retention is measured at the first interview for a continuing consumer (baseline), follow-up interview, and discharge interview. The survey was modified to include an item in Section K (Services Received) where the provider will indicate whether the consumer received Inpatient Psychiatric Care within the past 6 months; specifically, item 3 under Treatment Services. In addition to questions asked of clients related to the NOMs domains, programs will be required to abstract information from client records on the services received. Following is the estimated annual response burden for this effort. Type of response Number of respondents Data collection per respondents Hours per data collection Total hour burden Client Baseline Assessment 17,555 1 0.333 5,852 Periodic Client Reassessment 7,015 (3-month) 6,532 (6-month) 1 1 0.333 0.333 2,338 2,178 Discharge Interviews 4,409 1 0.333 1,470 Chart Abstraction 7,015 (3-month) 6,532 (6-month) 11,023 (Discharge) 1 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 702 653 1,102 Total 17,555 14,294 Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by January 16, 2007 to: SAMHSA Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974. Dated: December 7, 2006. Elaine Parry, Acting Director, Office of Program Services. [FR Doc. E6-21349 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on

(240)276-1243. Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collections of information are 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 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. Proposed Project: National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program: Phase IV—(OMB No. 0930-0257)—Revision SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services is responsible for the national evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program that will collect data on child mental health outcomes, family life, and service system development and performance. The national evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families Program will collect data on child mental health outcomes, family life, and service system development and performance. Data will be collected on 27 service systems, and roughly 5,922 children and families. Data collection for this evaluation is conducted over a 5-year period. The core of service system data will be collected every 18 months throughout the 5-year evaluation period, with a sustainability survey conducted in selected years. Service delivery and system variables of interest include the following: Maturity of system of care development, adherence to the system of care program model, and client service experience. The length of time that individual families will participate in the study ranges from 18 to 36 months depending on when they enter the evaluation. Child and family outcomes of interest will be collected at intake and during subsequent follow-up sessions at 6-month intervals. The outcome measures include the following: Child symptomatology and functioning, family functioning, material resources, and caregiver strain. Time-limited studies addressing the cultural competence of services and the role of primary care providers in systems of care will be conducted at selected points during the evaluation period. Internet-based technology will be used for collecting data via Web-based surveys and for data entry and management. The average annual respondent burden is estimated below for the final 3 years of data collection. The estimate reflects the average number of respondents in each respondent category, the average number of responses per respondent per year, the average length of time it will take for each response, and the total average annual burden for each category of respondent, and for all categories of respondents combined. This revision to the currently approved information collection activities includes:

(1)The addition of a Primary Care Study, and

(2)the addition of a Treatment Effectiveness Study. The Primary Care Study seeks to investigate the role of primary health care practitioners

(PCPs)in systems of care and to further understand the impact of services provided within primary care on child and family outcomes. One goal of this study is to identity strategies that help primary care and mental health care providers to work together effectively. Another is to identify ways to integrate PCPs into systems of care. The treatment effectiveness study will examine the relative impact of community-based treatments focused within system of care sites. This study will focus on a community-based practice that has not accumulated research evidence, but rather through community-based implementation that has accumulated practice-based evidence. Instrument Respondent Number of respondents Total average number of responses per respondent Hours per response Total burden hours 3-Year average annual burden hours System-of-Care Assessment Interview Guides and Data Collection Forms Key site informants 648 2 1.000 1296 432 Interagency Collaboration Scale

(IACS)Key site informants 648 2 0.133 173 58 Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study Caregiver Information Questionnaire (CIQ-IC) Caregiver 5922 1 0.283 1676 559 Caregiver Information Questionnaire Followup (CIQ-FC) Caregiver 5922 3 0.200 3553 1184 Child and Family Outcome Study Caregiver Strain Questionnaire

(CGSQ)Caregiver 5922 4 0.167 3956 1319 Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)/Child Behavior Checklist 1 1/2 -5 (CBCL 1 1/2 -5) Caregiver 5922 4 0.333 7888 2629 Education Questionnaire

(EQ)Caregiver 5922 4 0.100 2369 790 Living Situations Questionnaire

(LSQ)Caregiver 5922 4 0.083 1966 655 The Family Life Questionnaire

(FLQ)Caregiver 5922 4 0.054 1184 395 Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale

(BERS)Caregiver 5922 4 0.167 3956 1319 Columbia Impairment Scale

(CIS)Caregiver 5922 4 0.083 1966 655 The Vineland Screener

(VS)Caregiver 2665 4 0.250 2665 888 Cultural Competence and Service Provision—Caregiver

(CCSP)Caregiver 5922 3 0.167 2967 989 Delinquency Survey

(DS)Youth 3553 4 0.167 2374 791 Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale—Second Edition, Youth Rating Scale (BERS-2) Youth 3553 4 0.167 2374 791 Gain-quick Substance Related Issues (Gain SRI) Youth 3553 4 0.083 1180 1966 Substance Use Scale

(SUS)Youth 3553 4 0.100 1421 474 Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scales (RCMAS) Youth 3553 4 0.050 711 237 Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale—Second Edition (RADS-2) Youth 3553 4 0.050 711 237 Youth Information Questionnaire (YIQ-I) Youth 3553 1 0.167 593 198 Youth Information Questionnaire (YIQ-F) Youth 3553 3 0.167 1780 593 Service Experience Study Multi-Sector Services Contact—Revised for Caregiver (MSSC-RC) Caregiver 5922 3 0.250 4442 1481 Youth Services Survey for Families (YSS-F) Caregiver 5922 3 0.117 2079 693 Cultural Competence Practices Study (Focus Group) Caregiver 36 1 1.500 54 18 Cultural Competence Practices Study (Focus Group) Youth 36 1 1.500 54 18 Youth Services Survey (YSS-Y) Youth 3553 4 0.083 1180 393 Cultural Competence Practices Study (Focus Group) Provider 60 1 1.500 90 30 Treatment Effectiveness Study Conflict Behavior Questionnaire

(CBQ)Caregiver 400 4 0.167 267 89 Family Assessment Measure

(FAM)Caregiver 400 4 0.250 400 133 Therapeutic Alliance Scale—Caregiver

(TAS)Caregiver 400 4 0.167 267 89 Ohio Scales—Caregiver Caregiver 400 4 0.250 400 133 Parenting Sense of Competence Scale

(PSOC)Caregiver 400 4 0.167 267 89 Parenting Locus of Control

(PLOC)Caregiver 400 4 0.250 400 133 Therapy Adherence Form Caregiver 400 4 0.167 267 89 Therapeutic Alliance Scale—Youth (TAS-Y) Youth 240 4 0.167 160 53 Ohio Scales—Youth Youth 240 4 0.250 240 80 Primary Care Provider Study Primary Care Provider—Web survey Provider 540 1 0.500 270 90 Sustainability Study Sustainability Web Survey Caregiver 27 2 0.500 27 9 Sustainability Survey—Provider Provider/Administrator 81 2 0.500 81 27 Summary of Annualized Burden Estimates for 3 Years Number of distinct respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (hours) Total average annual burden (hours) Caregivers 5922 1.15 2.10 14339 Youth 3553 1.19 1.01 4259 Provider/Administrators 648 0.57 1.74 637 Total 10123 19234 Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Dated: December 7, 2006. Elaine Parry, Acting Director, Office of Program Services. [FR Doc. E6-21350 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5037-N-91] Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities (AN/NHAIC) AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian colleges and universities apply for competitive grants to undertake Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-eligible activities to expand their role helping their communities with neighborhood revitalization, housing, and economic development. DATES: *Comments Due Date: January 16, 2007.* ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2528-0206) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail *Lillian_L._Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone

(202)708-2374. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer or from HUD's Web site at *http://hlannwp031.hud.gov/po/i/icbts/collectionsearch.cfm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities (AN/NHAIC). *OMB Approval Number:* 2528-0206. *Form Numbers:* SF-424, SF-424 Supplement, SF-LLL, HUD-424-CB, HUD-27300, HUD-2880, HUD-2993, HUD-96011, HUD-2994-A and HUD-96010 and HUD-2993. *Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:* Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian colleges and universities apply for competitive grants to undertake Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-eligible activities to expand their role helping their communities with neighborhood revitalization, housing, and economic development. *Frequency of Submission:* Quarterly, Other Final Report. Number of respondents Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting Burden 30 2 17.5 1,050 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 1,050. *Status:* Extension of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: December 8, 2006. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21330 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5037-N-89] Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Youthbuild Program AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. The Youthbuild Program provides disadvantaged youth, predominately high school dropouts, with educational opportunities and job skills training. Beginning with fiscal year

(FY)2007, this program transfers to the Department of Labor. The Youthbuild Transfer Act provides authority to HUD to administer grants for FY 2006 and earlier until closeout. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* January 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2506-0142) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail *Lillian_L._Deitzer@HUD.gov* or telephone

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(FY)2007, this program transfers to the Department of Labor. The Youthbuild Transfer Act provides authority to HUD to administer grants for FY 2006 and earlier until closeout. *Frequency of Submission:* Semi-annually, Annually. Number of respondents Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting Burden 300 2 20 12,000 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 12,000. *Status:* Revision of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: December 8, 2006. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information, Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21331 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5037-N-90] Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB; Section 901 Notice of Intent and Fungibility Plan for Combining Public Housing Capital or Operating Funds, or Housing Choice Voucher Funds To Assist Displaced Families and Address Damages Related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. Eligible PHAs in areas most heavily impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will submit a Notice of Intent and Section 901 Fungibility Plan notifying HUD they intend to exercise funding flexibility and describing how program funds will be reallocated and spent to meet hurricane-related needs. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* January 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2577-0245) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lillian Deitzer, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail *lillian_l._deitzer@hud.gov* or telephone

(202)708-2374. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Deitzer or from HUD's Web site at *http://hlannwp031.hud.gov/po/i/icbts/collectionsearch.cfm* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Section 901 Notice of Intent and Fungibility Plan for Combining Public Housing Capital or Operating Funds, or Housing Choice Voucher Funds to Assist Displaced Families and Address Damages Related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. *OMB Approval Number:* 2577-0245. *Form Numbers:* None. *Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:* Eligible PHAs in areas most heavily impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will submit a Notice of Intent and Section 901 Fungibility Plan notifying HUD they intend to exercise funding flexibility and describing how program funds will be reallocated and spent to meet hurricane-related needs. *Frequency of Submission:* Annually. Number of respondents Annual responses × Hours per response = Burden hours Reporting Burden 96 2 33 6,336 *Total Estimated Burden Hours:* 6,336. *Status:* Extension of a currently approved collection. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended. Dated: December 8, 2006. Lillian L. Deitzer, Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21332 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5045-N-50] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone

(202)708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired

(202)708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in *National Coalition for the Homeless* v. *Veterans Administration* , No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.). Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD:

(1)Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless,

(2)its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or

(3)a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless. Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857;

(301)443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581. For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable. For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available. Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the **Federal Register** , the landholding agency, and the property number. For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( *i.e.* , acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: *AIR FORCE:* Ms. Kathryn Halvorson, Director, Air Force Real Property Agency, 1700 North Moore St., Suite 2300, Arlington, VA 22209-2802;

(703)696-5502; *ARMY:* Ms. Veronica Rines, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Attn: DAIM-ZS, Room 8536, 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202;

(703)601-2545; *ENERGY:* Mr. John Watson, Department of Energy, Office of Engineering & Construction Management, ME-90, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585:

(202)586-0072; *GSA:* Mr. John Kelly, Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal, 18th & F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405;

(202)501-0084; *INTERIOR:* Ms. Linda Tribby, Acquisition & Property Management, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS5512, Washington, DC 20240;

(202)513-0747; *NAVY:* Mr. Warren Meekins, Associate Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Services, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065;

(202)685-9305; (These are not toll-free numbers). Dated: December 7, 2006. Mark R. Johnston, Acting Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Special Needs. Title V, Federal Surplus Property Program Federal Register Report for 12/15/2006 Suitable/Unavailable Properties Building Colorado Federal Building 1520 E. Willamette St. Colorado Springs Co: El Paso CO 80909 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54200640004 Status: Excess GSA Number: 7-G-CO-0660 Comments: 50,363 sq. ft., needs major rehab, available in approx. 24 months, legal constraints Summary for SUITABLE/UNAVAILABLE PROPERTIES = Total number of Properties 1 Unsuitable Properties Building California 378 Bldgs. Edwards AFB Kern CA 93524 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640001 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration; Secured Area Florida Bldgs. 2349, 2351 Tyndall AFB Bay FL 32403 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640002 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone Georgia Bldgs. 90259, 90260 Bowmans Island Cumming Co: Forsyth GA 30041 Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200640008 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Hawaii Bldg. 00182 Kalaeloa Kapolei HI Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640108 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 00537 Kalaeloa Kapolei HI 96707 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640109 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 01676, 01677 Kalaeloa Kapolei HI 96707 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640110 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 01818, 01875 Kalaeloa Kapolei HI 96707 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640111 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Bldg. 01954 Kalaeloa Kapolei HI 96707 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640112 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration 14 Garage Facilities Naval Magazine Waianae HI 96792 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640039 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area; Extensive deterioration 2 Garages Naval Magazine Waianae HI 96792 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640040 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area; Extensive deterioration Bldgs. 305, 350 Naval Magazine Waianae HI 96792 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640041 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area; Extensive deterioration Iowa Bldgs. 900, 901 Iowa Air Base Sioux City Co: Woodbury IA 51111 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640003 Status: Excess Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Kansas 22 Duplexes McConnell AFB Sedgwick KS 67210 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640004 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area 5 Duplexes McConnell AFB Sedgwick KS 67210 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640005 Status: Excess Directions: 2009, 2224, 2312, 2315, 2357 Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 2131, 2133 McConnell AFB Sedgwick KS 67210 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640006 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 2201, 2301 McConnell AFB Sedgwick KS 67210 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640007 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area 15 Single Units McConnell AFB Sedgwick KS 67210 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640008 Status: Excess Reasons: Secured Area Maryland Bldg. 01426 Fort Detrick Frederick MD 21702 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640113 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration Michigan Bldg. 5010 Alpena CRTC Alpena MI Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640009 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Montana Bldg. 360 Malmstrom AFB Cascade MT 59402 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640010 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area New Mexico Bldg. 1910 Kirtland AFB Bernalillo NM 87117 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640011 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area North Carolina Bldgs. 41443, 41443, 41444 Fort Bragg Ft. Bragg NC 28310 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640114 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration North Dakota 8 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640012 Status: Unutilized Directions: 6102, 6105, 6106, 6108, 6202, 6205, 6207, 6208 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 6 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640013 Status: Unutilized Directions: 6103, 6104, 6107, 6109, 6204, 6206 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldg. 1828 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640014 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldg. 1329 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640015 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Bldgs. 1330, 1830 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640016 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area; Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 5 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640017 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1202, 1212, 1216, 1219, 1223 Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material 8 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640018 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1204, 1206, 1210, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1217, 1221 Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area 5 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640019 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1381, 1371, 1378, 1358, 1349 Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area Bldg. 1211 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640020 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area 22 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640021 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area 13 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640022 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area Bldgs. 1326, 1328, 1826 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640023 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Bldg. 1324 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640024 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area Bldg. 1411 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640025 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area 5 Bldgs. Grand Forks Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640026 Status: Unutilized Directions: 1222, 1516, 1203, 1207, 1512 Reasons: Secured Area; Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldg. 1325 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640027 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area 11 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640028 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area 18 Bldgs. Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640029 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Bldg. 1520 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640030 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within airport runway clear zone; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Bldg. 1228 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640031 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Within airport runway clear zone; Secured Area Bldg. 1849 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640032 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Bldg. 1813 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640033 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Bldg. 1839 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640034 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area; Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material Bldg. 1809 Grand Forks AFB Grand Forks ND 58205 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640035 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Pennsylvania Bldg. 00635 Carlisle Barracks Carlisle PA 17013 Landholding Agency: Army Property Number: 21200640115 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration South Carolina Bldg. 243 169th Fighter Wing, SCANG Eastover SC 29044 Landholding Agency: Air Force Property Number: 18200640036 Status: Underutilized Reasons: Secured Area Bldg. 701-001P Savannah River Site Aiken SC 29802 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200640002 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 105-1P, 105-6P Savannah River Site Aiken SC 29802 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200640003 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Bldgs. 151-1P, 151-2P Savannah River site Aiken SC 29802 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200640004 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Bldg. 191-P Savannah River Site Aiken SC 29802 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200640005 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Bldg. 710-P Savannah River Site Aiken SC 29802 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200640006 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area Texas Bldg. 11-029, Zone 11 Pantex Plant Amarillo Co: Carson TX 79120 Landholding Agency: Energy Property Number: 41200640007 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Within 2000 ft. of flammable or explosive material; Secured Area Bldg. 243 Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Ft. Worth Co: Tarrant TX 76127 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640035 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration; Secured Area Bldg. 1430 Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Ft. Worth Co: Tarrant TX 76127 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640036 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration; Secured Area Bldg. 1500 Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Ft. Worth Co: Tarrant TX 76127 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640037 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Extensive deterioration; Secured Area Bldg. 4151 Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Ft. Worth Co: Tarrant TX 76127 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77200640038 Status: Unutilized Reasons: Secured Area; Extensive deterioration Wyoming Caretakers Residence Anchor Dam Thermopolis WY Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200640009 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration Storage Bldg. Anchor Dam Thermopolis WY Landholding Agency: Interior Property Number: 61200640010 Status: Excess Reasons: Extensive deterioration [FR Doc. E6-21155 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Secretary Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary is announcing a public meeting of the *Exxon Valdez* Oil Spill Public Advisory Committee. DATES: January 25, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Office, 441 West 5th Avenue, Suite 500, Anchorage, Alaska. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Mutter, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1689 “C” Street, Suite 119, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501,

(907)271-5011. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Public Advisory Committee was created by Paragraph V.A.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree entered into by the United States of America and the State of Alaska on August 27, 1991, and approved by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in settlement of *United States of America* v. *State of Alaska* , Civil Action No. A91-081 CV. The meeting agenda will include review of the proposed invitation to submit proposals for the fiscal year 2008 work plan, an update on the herring restoration effort, and an orientation for new Public Advisory Committee members. Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance. [FR Doc. E6-21431 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-RG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [F-14838-B, F-14838-B2; AK-964-1410-KC-P] Alaska Native Claims Selection AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance. SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Bethel Native Corporation. The lands are in the vicinity of the Kwethluk River at Three Step Mountain and the Tuluksak River, approximately 30 miles east of the Native village of Tuluksak, Alaska, and are located in: Seward Meridian, Alaska T. 10 N., R. 61 W., Secs. 5, 6, and 7; Secs. 8, 16, 17, and 18. Containing approximately 4,198 acres. T. 11 N., R. 61 W., Secs. 3 to 8, inclusive; Secs. 17 to 20, inclusive; Secs. 30 and 31. Containing approximately 7,524 acres. T. 12 N., R. 61 W., Secs. 31 to 34, inclusive. Containing approximately 2,528 acres. T. 10 N., R. 62 W., Secs. 1, 12, and 13. Containing approximately 1,747 acres. T. 5 N., R. 68 W., Secs. 1, 2, and 3; Secs. 10 to 15, inclusive. Containing approximately 5,590 acres. Aggregating approximately 21,587 acres. The subsurface estate in these lands, except that in the lands described below, will be conveyed to Calista Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to Bethel Native Corporation: Seward Meridian, Alaska T. 10 N., R. 61 W., Secs. 7 and 8; Secs. 16, 17, and 18. Containing approximately 2,938 acres. T. 10 N., R. 62 W., Secs. 12 and 13. Containing approximately 1,107 acres. Aggregating approximately 4,045 acres. Calista Corporation received title to the subsurface estate in the lands described immediately above in a prior conveyance. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Tundra Drums. DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are: 1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected by the decision shall have until January 16, 2007 to file an appeal. 2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights. ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at *ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov.* Persons who use a telecommunication device

(TTD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Kara Marciniec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication II. [FR Doc. E6-21348 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-100-06-1310-DB] Notice of Availability of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, WY AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: Under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Pinedale Field Office announces the availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(SEIS)on a proposal for long-term development of natural gas resources in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA). The BLM published the Notice of Intent

(NOI)to prepare a SEIS for the Pinedale Anticline Project in the **Federal Register** on October 21, 2005. DATES: The Draft SEIS will be available for public comment for 60 days starting on the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** . A separate CALGRID airborne ozone report will be published subsequent to the release of the Draft SEIS. The BLM can best utilize your comments on the supplemental information if they are received within the 60 day review period provided above. To provide the public with an opportunity to review the proposal and project information, the BLM will host a meeting in Pinedale, Wyoming. The BLM will notify the public of the meeting date, time, and location at least 15 days prior to the event. Announcement of the public meeting will be made by news release to the media, individual letter mailings, and posting on the BLM website, listed below, if it is available. ADDRESSES: Please send written comments or resource information to the Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Matt Anderson, Project Manager, 432 East Mill Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941. Electronic mail may be sent to: *WYMail_PAPA_YRA@blm.gov* . The SEIS will be posted at *http://web.wy.blm.gov* when available. Your response is important and will be considered in the environmental analysis process. If you do respond, we will keep you informed of decisions resulting from this analysis. Please note that public comments and information submitted regarding this project including names, e-mail addresses, and street addresses of the respondents will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name, e-mail address, or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this plainly at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by the law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Matt Anderson, Project Manager at

(307)367-5328, or by e-mail: *matt_anderson@blm.gov* ; or by the address above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM conducted NEPA analysis and issued a Record of Decision

(ROD)for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project in July 2000 in response to the increasing number of operators requesting approval to drill and develop oil and gas wells on the Pinedale Anticline. The NEPA document analyzed three alternatives with different levels of required mitigation, and for each alternative, there were three exploration and development scenarios based on the density and distribution of well pad development. The PAPA ROD established seasonal restrictions on natural gas development to minimize adverse effects on wintering big game and sage-grouse during breeding and nesting. The PAPA Final EIS did not include analysis of the potential impacts of oil and gas development activities (specifically drilling and completions) to big game on crucial winter ranges during the period of November 15 through April 30. Exceptions to this winter closure period were to be based on current conditions such as the presence of wintering animals or depth of snow cover on a case-by-case basis. Starting in the winter of 2002-2003, the BLM authorized Questar Exploration and Production (Questar) to continue gas development operations at one well pad within big game crucial winter range. Questar was required to cooperate fully with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in the study of the impact of its operations by supporting the ongoing Sublette Mule Deer Study. In November 2004, the BLM issued a Decision Record allowing Questar to expand their development activities in crucial mule deer winter range during winter while continuing to support the Sublette Mule Deer Study (Questar Year-Round Drilling Proposal Environmental Assessment, November 2004). Since then, other operators within the PAPA have expressed interest in conducting gas development activities including year-round drilling within big game crucial winter range. In the summer of 2005, Anschutz, Shell Exploration and Production Company (Shell), and Ultra Resources Inc. (Ultra) submitted a proposal to the BLM for a year-round drilling demonstration project on three well pads within their leaseholds during 1 year. In September 2005, the BLM issued a Decision Record to allow them to proceed (ASU Year-Round Drilling Demonstration Project, September 2005). The Decision Record allowed each of the three operators to drill year-round on one well pad each on crucial winter range during the winter of 2005-2006. The result of that project led to the current proposal and to BLM's determination that a Supplemental EIS is necessary. The PAPA encompasses approximately 198,034 acres of primarily Federal lands (nearly 80 percent), and State and private land. Approximately 83 percent of the mineral estate underlying the PAPA is Federally-owned. *Alternatives:* The BLM has received a proposal for continued development of natural gas resources in the PAPA from Questar, Shell, and Ultra, representing themselves and others who agree to participate, collectively referred to as the Operators. There are currently approximately 460 producing wells in the PAPA; the Operators' proposal would exceed the drilling activity analyzed in the PAPA ROD (2000). The NEPA and air quality impact analyses supporting the PAPA ROD

(2000)addressed 900 total wells and 700 producing well pads. The PAPA ROD stated that if the level of development exceeded that analyzed in the Draft EIS, that BLM would conduct additional environmental analysis. The BLM has identified the following resources that may be adversely impacted beyond the level analyzed in the PAPA ROD and the resources will be analyzed in the Draft SEIS: surface and ground water; air quality; wildlife and their habitats; vegetation; visual resources; transportation; noxious weeds; grazing; cultural and paleontological; wetland and riparian; threatened and endangered animal and plant species; and socioeconomics. In addition to the proposed action, the Draft SEIS analyzes the effects of the no-action alternative and the BLM preferred alternative, which are summarized below. *Proposed Action:* The Operators propose to conduct year-round drilling and completions in Concentrated Development Areas within a Core Development Area (coinciding with the Anticline Crest) of the PAPA. The Operators' proposed development includes construction of new well pads and substantial expansion of existing well pads to allow for multiple wells drilled from a pad. The Operators propose an additional 4,399 wells on approximately 10-acre bottom hole spacing from an additional 250 well pads to more effectively recover the mineral resource. In addition, the BLM has determined that there is a need for new pipeline corridors between the PAPA and processing plants in southwestern Wyoming. Therefore, the SEIS includes specific analysis for two additional gas sales pipelines from the PAPA, one to the Granger and Blacks Fork gas plant and one from the PAPA to the Opal and Pioneer gas plant. Concurrent with the drilling and development activities, the Operators propose 3:1 compensatory mitigation to offset wildlife impacts and to study and evaluate the effects of oil and gas activities on big game using crucial winter ranges and sage-grouse using seasonal habitats during the winter months (November 15 through April 30). *No Action Alternative:* This alternative would continue development within the PAPA as approved in the PAPA ROD and subsequent environmental documents and would not consider the Operators' proposal to: provide compensatory mitigation; minimize habitat fragmentation; and maximize resource recovery through multi-well pads and directional drilling. *BLM Preferred Alternative:* This alternative analyzes the same number of drilled wells, pad expansions, new well pads, proposed compensatory mitigation, and pipeline routes as the proposed action with limitations on where year-round drilling could occur at any one time within a core development area. The preferred alternative also reduces the size of the core development area from the proposed action. Dated: September 22, 2006. Robert A. Bennett, State Director. [FR Doc. E6-21309 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AZ 320-06-1610-DP-091A-241E] Notice of Availability of Yuma Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability

(NOA)of Yuma Field Office

(YFO)Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS). SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1701 *et seq.* ), the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) for the Yuma Field Office (YFO), Arizona, and by this notice is announcing the opening of the public review and comment period. DATES: Written comments on the DRMP/DEIS will be accepted for 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its NOA in the **Federal Register** . Future meetings or hearings and any other public involvement activities will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Rebecca Heick, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office, 2555 East Gila Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365 or by e-mail at *AZ_YM_RMP@blm.gov* . You may also hand-deliver comments to the above listed address. A minimum of five public meetings will be held during the 90-day public review and comment period during which oral comments will be accepted. Exact dates, places, and times of public meetings will be posted on the BLM Arizona Web page at *http://www.blm.gov/az* /, news releases and Planning Bulletin, or you may contact Micki Bailey at

(928)317-3215, for further information. Public comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office, 2555 East Gila Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365, during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Micki Bailey, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office, 2555 East Gila Ridge Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365; telephone

(928)317-3200. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the YFO DRMP/DEIS is available for review via the internet from a link at *http://www.blm.gov/az/LUP/planning.htm* (subject to change), electronic (on CD-ROM), and paper at the BLM YFO. Electronic (on CD-ROM) and paper copies may also be obtained by contacting Micki Bailey at the aforementioned address and phone number. The planning area encompasses more than 1.3 million acres of BLM-administered public land. The DRMP/DEIS includes strategies for protecting and preserving the biological, cultural, recreational, geological, educational, scientific, and scenic values that balance multiple uses of the BLM-administered lands throughout the YFO planning area. The agency-preferred alternative attempts to accomplish the above while achieving consistency among the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department, California Department of Fish and Game, the BLM, and other land managing agencies within the boundaries of the planning area. The range of alternatives in this draft evaluates planning decisions brought forward from the current BLM planning documents, the Yuma District Resource Management Plan (1987), the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1988), and the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983). The agency-preferred alternative identifies one new proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): Dripping Springs Natural and Cultural ACEC (11,700 acres). One existing ACEC would be expanded under the agency-preferred alternative: Gila River Cultural ACEC (3,700 to 28,500 acres). The Gila River Cultural ACEC would be renamed the Sears Point Cultural ACEC. A total of seven ACECs are represented within the [proposed] range of alternatives. The existing Big Maria Mountains Cultural ACEC (4,500 acres) would be carried forward within Alternatives A, B, C, and E. An expansion of this ACEC is proposed within Alternative D (from 4,500 acres to 9,200 acres). Dripping Springs Natural and Cultural ACEC is proposed within Alternatives C (11,700 acres), D (9,800 acres), and E (11,700 acres). The Gila River Terraces and Trails Cultural ACEC is proposed within Alternative D only (140,400 acres). The Limitrophe is proposed as an ACEC within Alternative D only (4,500 acres). Palomas Plain Natural ACEC is proposed within Alternative D only (429,900 acres). The Gila River Cultural ACEC would be carried forward within Alternatives A and B (3,700 acres), and expanded within Alternatives C, D, and E (28,500 acres). Walter's Camp Natural and Cultural ACEC is proposed within Alternative D only (3,500 acres). The following types of resource-use limitations would apply to these ACECs:

(1)Allowable uses would be limited to those that are compatible with the natural or cultural resources for which the area is designated,

(2)Recreation facilities would be limited to projects that protect ACEC values, and

(3)Travel would be permitted only on designated open and signed routes. For detailed information on specific management for each proposed ACEC, see Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives, Special Designations section. After reviewing and considering all public comments received during this comment period, a Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared by the BLM in accordance with planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610 and NEPA at 40 CFR 1502. Elaine Y. Zielinski, Arizona State Director. [FR Doc. E6-21311 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-32-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Notice of Availability of Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment

(EA)AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Department of the Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability of the draft Programmatic EA for the Coastal Impact Assistance Program. SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service

(MMS)announces the availability of the draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment

(EA)for the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP). This EA will assist agency planning by facilitating the establishment of procedures for the disbursement of CIAP funds and providing an opportunity to involve the public, States, and coastal political subdivisions (CPSs). Specifically, this EA generally describes the potential environmental impacts of CIAP projects, provides comprehensive guidance to the States and CPSs for submitting the documentation needed to comply with relevant environmental laws at the time they request funding for proposed projects, and compiles information that may be appropriate to include in environmental compliance documents prepared for each proposed project. DATES: Comments will be accepted for thirty

(30)days after the publication date of this notice. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may comment via the Internet at: *https://ocsconnect.mms.gov/pcs-public/* . This is the preferred method for commenting. From the Public Connect “Welcome” screen, search for “Coastal Impact Assistance Program Draft EA” or select it from the “Projects Open for Comment” menu. You may mail comments to: Coastal Impact Assistance Program Draft EA, Attention Mr. James F. Bennett, Chief, Branch of Environmental Assessment, 381 Elden Street, Mail Stop 4042, Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. You may also hand-deliver comments to the Department of the Interior, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 4227, Washington, DC 20240. Envelopes or packages must be marked “Coastal Impact Assistance Program Draft Environmental Assessment.” Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. Submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Bennett, Minerals Management Service, Chief, Branch of Environmental Assessment, at

(703)787-1660. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft programmatic Environmental Assessment may be found on the Internet at: *http://www.mms.gov/offshore/CIAPmain.htm* . After the comments on the draft EA have been reviewed and analyzed, a final EA will be prepared and made available to the public. The CIAP was created as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The purpose of the CIAP is to provide funds to conserve, protect, and restore coastal areas; mitigate damage to fish, wildlife, and natural resources; implement a federally-approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan; mitigate the impact of Outer Continental Shelf activities through funding of onshore infrastructure projects and public service needs; and assist planning and defray the administrative costs of complying with the CIAP. Responsibility for disbursing CIAP funds has been delegated to the MMS. The Energy Policy Act requires MMS to disburse $250 million for each fiscal year 2007 through 2010 to eligible producing States (Alabama, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and CPSs to be used for one or more of five authorized uses. For MMS to comply with the Energy Policy Act and effectively manage the CIAP, it must establish procedures for the submission and approval of State coastal impact assistance plans and the grant application process for individual CIAP projects. The MMS has determined that the preparation of this EA will assist agency planning by providing comprehensive guidance to the States and CPSs for submitting to MMS the documentation needed to comply with the relevant environmental laws at the time they request funding for proposed projects. Review of the draft EA provides an opportunity to involve the public, States, and CPSs in the establishment of this guidance. Because the development of CIAP procedures does not require MMS to resolve conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources, MMS does not analyze alternatives to the development of CIAP procedures in this EA. This EA provides information that may be appropriate to include in National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)compliance documents prepared for each proposed project. Although the individual CIAP projects have not yet been proposed, the broad categories of authorized CIAP projects set forth in the Energy Policy Act enables MMS to generally describe the potential environmental impacts of CIAP projects. MMS expects that future NEPA compliance documents for proposed CIAP projects will analyze a no action alternative on a collective or case-by-case basis, as well as reasonable alternatives that may include standard mitigation measures. Dated: November 13, 2006. Robert P. LaBelle, Acting Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management. [FR Doc. E6-21445 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-894 (Review)] Certain Ammonium Nitrate From Ukraine AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission. ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on certain ammonium nitrate from Ukraine. SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain ammonium nitrate from Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207). DATES: *Effective Date:* December 8, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Trainor (202-205-3354), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ) . The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://edis.usitc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background.* —On November 6, 2006, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year review were such that a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (71 FR 67366, November 21, 2006). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site. *Participation in the review and public service list.* —Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review. *Limited disclosure of business proprietary information

(BPI)under an administrative protective order

(APO)and BPI service list* .—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO. *Staff report* .—The prehearing staff report in the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on March 29, 2007, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules. *Hearing* .—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the review beginning at 9:30 a.m. on April 17, 2007, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before April 10, 2007. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 12, 2007, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony *in camera* no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing. *Written submissions* .—Each party to the review may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is April 9, 2007. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is April 27, 2007; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the review may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before April 27, 2007. On May 23, 2007, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before May 29, 2007, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even where electronic filing of a document is permitted, certain documents must also be filed in paper form, as specified in II

(C)of the Commission's Handbook on Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff. In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service. Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: December 8, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-21420 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation [Docket No. FBI 109] RIN 1100-AA14 Implementation of Section 104 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, (FBI), Justice. ACTION: Final Notice of Capacity; Notice of Response to Comments on Supplement for the Purpose of Responding to Remand. SUMMARY: By this Notice, the FBI is responding to comments submitted on its Supplement for the Purpose of Responding to Remand (“Supplement”), published previously on December 5, 2003, at 68 FR 68112. As stated therein, the Supplement was published for the purpose of responding to a court decision to remand for further explanation two issues from the Final Notice of Capacity. The Final Notice of Capacity was published on March 12, 1998 at 63 FR 12218, pursuant to the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”), 47 U.S.C. 1001, *et seq* . As stated in the Supplement, the court did not vacate the Final Notice of Capacity, and only required further explanation as to the two remanded issues. Neither this Notice, nor the Supplement constitute a republishing of the Final Notice of Capacity, and Telecommunications carriers should note that the provisions of 47 U.S.C. 1003(d) do not apply to today's Notice and should not file a “carrier statement” in response thereto. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the CALEA Implementation Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)at

(703)814-4700, or at CALEA Implementation Unit, 14800 Conference Center Drive, Chantilly, VA 20153. I. Background A. CALEA Generally Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”) in 1994 to require telecommunications carriers to ensure that their networks have the capability to enable local police, federal officers and all other law enforcement agencies to conduct lawfully authorized electronic surveillance. Electronic surveillance is an indispensable tool used in investigating serious crimes, including terrorism, drug trafficking, and kidnaping. Congress has long recognized the importance of this investigative technique, and has authorized and governed its use through several laws, including Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510 *et seq.* (“Title III”), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. 2701 *et seq.* (“ECPA”), and the Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices provisions, 18 U.S.C. 3121 *et seq.* , as those laws were modified by the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272. The electronic surveillance laws cited above delineate the government's lawful authority to intercept communications and acquire call-identifying information. CALEA, by contrast, is intended to preserve the government's technical ability to engage in electronic surveillance as allowed by law. It does so by requiring “telecommunications carriers” to design or modify their systems to ensure the government's ability to intercept communications and acquire call-identifying information, pursuant to lawful authorization. In addition, CALEA contains “capacity requirements.” See generally id § 1003. The capacity provisions generally require carriers to be capable of supporting a certain number of communications interceptions, pen registers, and traps and traces at the same time. These provisions also require the Attorney General to issue a Notice of the maximum and actual capacity requirements setting forth the “maximum” and “actual” number of communications interceptions, pen registers, and traps and traces that all government agencies may, in the future, conduct and use at the same time. The FBI Director is the authorized delegate of the Attorney General with respect to the implementation of CALEA, and therefore has issued such Notices of Capacity on the Attorney General's behalf. B. Notices of Capacity In 1995, the FBI published an Initial Notice of Capacity which expressed capacity requirements in terms of a “percentage of engineered capacity.” 60 FR 53,643 (Oct. 16, 1995). After receiving comments from the public we revised that methodology and published a Second Notice of Capacity. 62 FR 1902 (Jan. 14, 1997). After an additional round of comments, we published the Final Notice of Capacity (referred to herein as the “Final Notice”) on March 12, 1998. 63 FR at 12218-12310. At all times, we sought and incorporated the comments of the telecommunications industry, which assisted us in understanding the challenges facing the industry and others in applying the capacity requirements. The FBI acted on behalf of all federal, state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide in establishing these capacity requirements. C. Court Decision On January 18, 2002, the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on a number of challenges to the Final Notice. See *USTA* v. *FBI* , 276 F.3d 620 (D.C. 2002). While the Court's decision largely upheld the Final Notice, it vacated one issue and remanded two others to the FBI. The Court vacated the statement in the Final Notice (63 FR 12219) that “law enforcement considers 5 business days from a telecommunications carrier's receipt of a court order to be a reasonable time within which to permit an incremental expansion up to the maximum capacity.” USTA, 276 F.3d at 627. The Court also required the FBI to provide further explanation of:

(1)Our decision to count any two historical surveillances occurring on the same day as simultaneous and,

(2)our decision to set forth only one “actual” and one “maximum” capacity requirement number per geographic region, rather than separate requirements for each type of surveillance (communications interceptions, pen registers, traps and traces). The Court's concern with both of these issues centered on the explanations contained in the Final Notice. The Court did not vacate these portions of the Final Notice, but directed the district court to remand them to the FBI for a more adequate explanation. D. FBI Response to Remand The FBI published a “Supplement for the Purpose of Responding to Remand (“Supplement”)” on December 5, 2003. For a complete explanation of the background for the Supplement, see 68 FR 68112. By way of background, the FBI published the Supplement in order to respond to the two issues described in the preceding section which were remanded to the FBI by the Court of Appeals in *USTA* v. *FBI* , 276 F.3d 620 (D.C. 2002), with regard to the FBI's Final Notice of Capacity (“Final Notice”). The Final Notice was published on March 12, 1998 at 63 FR 12218. In the Supplement, the FBI provided additional reasoning, not previously before the Court, for its decision in the Final Notice to count any two historical surveillances occurring on the same day as simultaneous. In addition, the Supplement contained further guidance for carriers with regard to the numerical capacity requirements stated in the Final Notice. This further guidance provided carriers with a method for breaking down such numerical capacity requirement numbers between communications interceptions and acquisitions of call-identifying information (pen registers or traps and traces). Carriers may utilize this guidance to ascertain the maximum number of communications interceptions that their systems must be capable of accommodating by reference to a percentage limitation and the capacity requirement for each geographic region. In many cases, this further guidance will lower the number of communications interceptions that a carrier might otherwise be required to accommodate based on the capacity requirements. E. This Publication Some parties filed comments in response to the Supplement. The purpose of this publication is to summarize those comments and set forth the FBI's responses. As discussed in the next section, the FBI carefully considered any arguments or suggestions raised in such comments, with particular attention to any comments filed in response to the proposed breakdown of capacity requirements. Having considered such arguments, the FBI has determined that no changes should be made to the Supplement, including the proposed breakdown of capacity requirements, and it should be adopted as filed. II. Response to Comments The FBI received only three comments regarding the Supplement. Comments were submitted by the United States Telecommunications Association (USTA), MCI Worldcom (MCI), and Verizon. Having considered the comments, the FBI has determined that no changes are necessary to the Supplement either with regard to the additional reasoning supplied regarding the interpretation of “simultaneously” or with regard to the proposed breakdown of capacity requirements. A detailed response to such comments follows. A. Meaning of the Term “Simultaneously” Two of the three commenters, USTA and MCI, discussed the additional reasoning provided in the Supplement by the FBI with regard to the meaning of the term “simultaneously.” Both of these comments, however, have only raised again the same issues previously considered and discussed by the FBI in the Supplement. Both USTA and MCI commented that the FBI's approach in Final Notice of Capacity (“Final Notice”) is still unreasonable because it does not reflect “actual simultaneity” (Worldcom, at 3) or “interceptions [that] actually overlap in time.” (USTA, 3). They argue the Supplement incorrectly continues to rely on the same approach taken in the Final Notice of Capacity. They further argue that the FBI should rather have abandoned its existing Final Notice of Capacity, conducted a new survey, and issued a new Notice of Capacity based on a methodology that treats only “overlapping” intercepted phone calls as “simultaneous.” As detailed in the Supplement, the FBI has already considered and rejected the methodology suggested by these comments, which is essentially to issue a new Notice of Capacity based upon on an estimate of the number of times that two or more ongoing surveillances will each be engaged in intercepting phone calls at the same time. See generally FR 68,114-68,118. Neither USTA nor MCI add any further weight or new information to this alternative interpretation requiring consideration of the number of “overlapping” intercepted phone calls. We reiterated in the Supplement that the FBI's approach was to treat any two or more ongoing surveillances, on the same day, as simultaneous. We explained in the Supplement that this approach represented a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. 68 FR 68,114. It was also better suited to providing adequate notice of capacity requirements to carriers and law enforcement, particularly in the case of carriers whose systems require continuously dedicated resources during the entire surveillance effort, not just during those times when phone communications are actually being intercepted. In the Supplement, we also observed that the capability of some carriers' systems is directly affected by the number of ongoing surveillances, not by the number of “overlapping” intercepted telephone calls. These carriers” technical interception solutions require resources to be dedicated for the entire time period during which a surveillance is ongoing, regardless of whether the intercept subject is actually using the telephone for communications. We found that if the capacity estimates were based only on the “phone-call-overlap” concept as suggested by USTA and MCI in its comments, that these dedicated-resource type carriers might underestimate law enforcement's needs. See 68 FR 68,115. Both USTA and MCI agree with the fact that some carriers' actually require the continuous dedication of system resources for each ongoing surveillance (regardless of the existence of overlapping phone calls), but they argue that the FBI's consideration of this fact is inappropriate because today's carriers do not prefer this method. See USTA, p. 5; MCI, p. 4. As explained in the Supplement, however, the FBI approach to estimating capacity requirements is “system-neutral” in that it does not assume that carriers will adopt any particular method or approach. Indeed, as we noted in the Supplement, since the FBI cannot require carriers to use any particular type of system, the capacity requirements must be tailored to fit any approach carriers might take. 1 1 See, *e.g.* , 47 U.S.C. 1002(b)(1) (“This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer to require any specific design * * * or system configurations * * *”). USTA, also appears to agree with the FBI's application of the term “simultaneous” in the context of a carrier that is utilizing the dedicated-resource-approach to facilitating interception. In particular, USTA itself acknowledges that where a carrier uses a dedicated connection, such as a T1 line, then such an approach would require that “an intercept be dedicated for the entire time of the surveillance * * *. Hence, an intercept could extend for an entire day and could overlap with other intercepts that may occur on the same day.” USTA, p. 5. USTA adds, however, that such dedicated-resource systems constitute “new technology” and should not be considered as justifying the capacity requirements set forth in the Final Notice, mainly because the Final Notice was based on a survey of surveillance conducted in older-technology systems. Somewhat conversely, MCI comments that dedicated-resource systems are “outdated” and that non-dedicated resource systems are now “predominant,” and therefore FBI should conduct a new survey of the “instantaneous use of switching capacity.” (MCI, 4). We continue to disagree with both the factual premise and the conclusion of these points. Carrier systems relying on dedicated resources for the entire surveillance period existed both before and after the passage of CALEA. Neither commenter suggests that they no longer exist. In any event, as we stated in the Supplement, the Final Notice is intended to be technology neutral. It provides carriers with an estimated number or surveillances, and relies upon them to implement an appropriate method of accommodating them. Nothing in the Final Notice would preclude a carrier from meeting the requirements by using a “dial-out” or any other non-dedicated-resource method. Indeed, such systems have substantial benefits for law enforcement and the carrier, and they largely eliminate any incremental burden or expense which might be imposed on a carrier in accommodating multiple same-day surveillances in accordance with the capacity requirements. Both commenters conclude with a contention that new capacity requirements should be established, and that, instead of using counties or market service areas, the FBI should state requirements by city (MCI, 5) or by switch (USTA, 8). These points are well beyond the scope of the issues addressed in the Supplement and will not be further considered herein. B. Comments Regarding the Breakdown of Capacity Requirements by Type of Surveillance Only Verizon and USTA submitted any comments regarding the FBI's proposed breakdown of capacity requirements by type of surveillance. Verizon supports the FBI's proposal, observing that it “usefully refines the capacity requirements.” (Verizon, 1). 2 We agree. USTA states that it opposes the breakdown, but appears to misconstrue the FBI's proposal. 2 Verizon also comments that the Supplement “does not provide needed guidance concerning the manner in which carriers should distribute the countywide CALEA capacity among multiple switches that serve that county.” (Verizon, 1). USTA makes a similar comment. (USTA, p. 8). The per-switch distribution of the capacity requirements is beyond the scope of the Supplement. However we observe that the FBI has already provided guidance as to this issue in the Final Notice of Capacity, noting in particular that “the interception capacity requirement within each wireline or wireless geographic area can be applied and capacity distributed at the discretion of the carrier.” See 63 FR 12232. USTA first states that: “the FBI's proposed formula sounds mathematically logical, [but] it is not based on concrete evidence to support its assumption that the proportion of communications interceptions declines as the total number of interceptions rises.” (USTA, p. 7). Based on that contention, USTA concludes that “where criminal activity is least likely to occur, carriers should be required to have less capacity for electronic surveillance.” (USTA, p. 8). We have considered these points and concluded that they reflect a misunderstanding of the proposed breakdown. As explained in the Supplement, the FBI sought to determine what portion of the capacity requirements stated in the Final Notice of Capacity represented communications interceptions, rather than other types of surveillance. See 68 FR 68118. As further explained, we made such determination through a re-examination of the same survey data used by the FBI to form the capacity requirements in the Final Notice of Capacity. *Id* . That examination revealed that the “percentage of communications interceptions tended to decrease as the total historical experience increased.” *Id* . In other words, we found by reviewing the data that as the total number of surveillances that had historically been conducted within a region increased, the proportion of that number that represented communications interceptions (rather than pen registers and traps and traces) decreased. Hence, USTA's comment that the FBI's conclusion was “not based on concrete evidence” is incorrect; it was appropriately based on the evidence of the same survey data from which the capacity requirements published in the Final Notice were derived. Moreover, USTA's comment that carriers should generally have lower capacity requirements “where criminal activity is least likely to occur” is inapposite. CALEA does not direct the FBI to determine a likelihood of criminal activity in forming capacity requirements. However, because the requirements were based on a historical survey of the number of surveillances occurring within specific geographic areas, the capacity requirements are in fact lower in regions where the historical number of surveillances is lower. As explained in the Final Notice, and in the Supplement, the FBI published the capacity requirements based upon a survey of the historical number of interceptions conducted within certain geographic areas. Geographic areas where the historical number of interceptions were high, generally (and quite naturally) resulted in relatively higher capacity requirements. For example, the published historical experience figure for New York, New York is 318, and the actual capacity requirement is 401. This may be compared with the historical experience figure for Greene County, New York, where relatively few surveillances were conducted during the survey period. The historical experience figure for Greene County is 2, and its actual capacity requirement is 3. Nothing in the Supplement, nor in the proposed breakdown, changes this relationship between the number of historical surveillances and the capacity requirement. Rather, the proposed breakdown provides additional guidance to carriers as to the maximum number of communications interceptions contained within capacity requirements. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated in the Supplement for the Purpose of Responding to Remand, and having considered the comments submitted in response thereto, the FBI hereby adopts the Supplement as final, without change. IV. Applicable Administrative Procedures and Executive Orders A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* . requires the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis whenever an agency is required by law “to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). This publication provides our response to the comments received on the Supplement for Purposes of Responding to Remand [Supplement] which was published pursuant to instructions of the Court of Appeals in order to provide further explanation and guidance regarding the Final Notice of Capacity issued pursuant to CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 1003. In this publication, we are not republishing either the Final Notice nor the Supplement. Therefore, we are not changing either the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis provided with the Final Notice nor the estimates of the number of small entities provided in the Supplement. We are not republishing the Final Notice, nor changing the existing numerical capacity requirements stated therein. We therefore find that there will be no significant economic impact on small businesses as a result of this publication. The FBI is unaware of any rules which would overlap, duplicate or conflict with this publication or the statements therein. B. *Executive Order 12866:* Regulatory Planning and Review This publication has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. The FBI has determined that this publication does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” in accordance with that Order. In particular, we had already determined that the Final Notice of Capacity and the Supplement did not meet the criterion for a “significant regulatory action” and that they would not result in an annual impact on the economy in excess of $100,000,000, nor would they economically impact State, local or tribal governments. 63 FR 12218, 12220; 68 FR 68112, 68120. This publication does not alter the economic analysis contained in either the Final Notice or the Supplement. C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This publication will not have a substantial direct effect of 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this publication does not have any federalism implications that warrant preparation of a federalism impact statement. D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform This publication meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 We determined in both the Final Notice of Capacity and in the Supplement that neither would result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, nor would they significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This publication only provides further a response to comments received on the Supplement and adopts the Supplement as final without change. Therefore, no actions deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532(a). F. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This publication is not a major rule as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. We determined in both the Final Notice of Capacity and in the Supplement that neither would: have an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; cause a major increase in costs or prices; or result in a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment or productivity, and innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. This publication only provides further a response to comments received on the Supplement and adopts the Supplement as final without change. G. Paperwork Reduction Act This publication contains no information collection or record-keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* . Dated: November 15, 2006. Elaine N. Lammert, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation. [FR Doc. E6-21426 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Job Corps: Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Proposed Job Corps Center To Be Located at the 6767 North 60th Street, Milwaukee, WI AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OSEC), Department of Labor. ACTION: Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed Job Corps Center to be located at the 6767 North 60th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-08) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary (OSEC), in accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d), gives final notice of the proposed construction of a new Job Corps Center at 6767 North 60th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and that this construction will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. In accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d) and 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2), a preliminary FONSI for the new Job Corps Center was published in the July 7, 2006 **Federal Register** (71 FR Page 38666-38667). No comments were received regarding the preliminary FONSI. ETA has reviewed the conclusion of the environmental assessment (EA), and agrees with the finding of no significant impact. This notice serves as the Final Finding of No Significant Impact for the new Job Corps Center at 6767 North 60th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The preliminary FONSI and the EA are adopted in final with no change. DATES: *Effective Date:* These findings are effective as of December 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael F. O'Malley, Architect, Unit Chief of Facilities, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary (OSEC), 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4460, Washington, DC 20210,

(202)693-3108 (this is not a toll-free number). Dated: December 7, 2006. Esther R. Johnson, National Director of Job Corps. [FR Doc. E6-21408 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-23-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Bureau of International Labor Affairs; Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy ACTION: Meeting notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiation and Trade Policy. *Date, Time, Place:* December 19, 2006; 2:30-4:30 p.m.; USTR Annex Building, Rooms 1 and 2, 1724 F St., NW., Washington, DC. *Purpose:* The meeting will include a review and discussion of current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. Potential U.S. negotiating objectives and bargaining positions in current and anticipated trade negotiations will be discussed. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2155(f) it has been determined that the meeting will be concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously compromise the Government's negotiating objectives or bargaining positions. Accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public. See section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app., and section (c)(9)(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Schoepfle, Acting Director, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs; Phone:

(202)693-4887. Signed at Washington, DC, the 12th day of December 2006. Rob Owen, Associate Deputy Undersecretary, International Labor Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-21401 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-28-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension/reinstatement of the data retention required by 20 CFR 652.8(d)(5) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, which requires each state to retain applications and job orders for a minimum of one year. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice or at this Web site: *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.* DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before February 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Christine Ollis, U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Investment, Room S-4231, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone

(202)693-3046 (this is not a toll-free number), fax

(202)693-3015, or e-mail *ollis.christine@dol.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background State Workforce Agencies serve employers and jobseekers within the One-Stop Career Center system by posting job orders and taking work applications (commonly referred to as registrations). This information is essential to the core operations of One-Stop Career Centers. The exact information collected on job orders and work applications and the manner in which it is collected is determined by the state. At a minimum, states must comply with 20 CFR 652.8(d)(5), which requires that each state retain applications and job orders for one year. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions *Type of Review:* Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection. *Agency:* Employment & Training Administration. *Title:* Work Application/Job Orders Record Retention. *OMB Number:* 1205-0001. *Recordkeeping:* Record Retention. *Affected Public:* State Governments. *Cite/Reference/Form/:* 20 CFR 652.8(d)(5). *Total Respondents:* 52. *Frequency:* Quarterly. *Total Responses:* N/A. *Average Time per Response:* N/A. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 416. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Signed at Washington, DC this 8th day of December 2006. Gay M. Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21423 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Request for Certification of Compliance—Rural Industrialization Loan and Grant Program AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration is issuing this notice to announce the receipt of a “Certification of Non-Relocation and Market and Capacity Information Report” (Form 4279-2) for the following: *Applicant/Location:* Southern Monterey County Memorial Hospital/King City, California. *Principal Product:* The loan, guarantee, or grant applicant plans to restructure debt and create additional employment. The NAICS industry code for this enterprise is 622110 (Health Care—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals). DATES: All interested parties may submit comments in writing no later than December 29, 2006. Copies of adverse comments received will be forwarded to the applicant noted above. ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to Anthony D. Dais, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4514, Washington, DC 20210; or e-mail *Dais.Anthony@dol.gov* ; or transmit via fax 202-693-3015 (this is not a toll-free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony D. Dais, at telephone number

(202)693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 188 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972, as established under 29 CFR part 75, authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)to make or guarantee loans or grants to finance industrial and business activities in rural areas. The Secretary of Labor must review the application for financial assistance for the purpose of certifying to the Secretary of Agriculture that the assistance is not calculated, or likely, to result in:

(a)A transfer of any employment or business activity from one area to another by the loan applicant's business operation; or,

(b)An increase in the production of goods, materials, services, or facilities in an area where there is not sufficient demand to employ the efficient capacity of existing competitive enterprises unless the financial assistance will not have an adverse impact on existing competitive enterprises in the area. The Employment and Training Administration

(ETA)within the Department of Labor is responsible for the review and certification process. Comments should address the two bases for certification and, if possible, provide data to assist in the analysis of these issues. Signed: at Washington, DC this 8th day of December 2006. Gay M. Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment. [FR Doc. E6-21421 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (06-088)] Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Meeting AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. DATES: Friday, January 12, 2007, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. eastern daylight time. ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Room 9H40, Washington, DC 20546. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark M. Kowaleski, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Executive Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546,

(202)358-0751. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will hold its Quarterly Meeting. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include Constellation Safety and Mission Assurance, Constellation/Shuttle Transition planning, Technical Governance, and Safety Culture and Leadership. The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room (40). Seating will be on a first-come basis. Please contact Ms. Susan Burch on

(202)358-0914 at least 48 hours in advance to reserve a seat. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register and asked to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID before receiving an access badge. Foreign Nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide the following information: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; Green card/visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, phone); and title/position of visitor. To expedite admittance, attendees can provide identifying information in advance by contacting Ms. Susan Burch via e-mail at *Susan.Burch@nasa.gov* or by telephone at

(202)358-0914. Photographs will only be permitted during the first 10 minutes of the meeting. During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. To do so, please contact Ms. Susan Burch on

(202)358-0914 at least 48 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA. P. Diane Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21368 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meetings; National Endowment for the Arts, Arts Advisory Panel Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference from the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate): State and Regional Partnerships (Regional Partnership Agreements review): January 9, 2007. This meeting, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m., will be open. Literature/International (application review): January 11, 2007. This meeting, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., will be closed. The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of April 8, 2005, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven

(7)days prior to the meeting. Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/682-5691. Dated: December 11, 2006. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts. [FR Doc. E6-21432 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-29462] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Master Materials License No. 45-23645-01NA, for Amendment of the License and Unrestricted Release of the Navy's Facility in Keyport, WA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Orysia Masnyk Bailey, Health Physicist, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19401; phone number

(864)427-1032; fax number

(610)680-3497; or by e-mail: *omm@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Master Materials License No. 45-23645-01NA. This license is held by the Department of the Navy (the Licensee), for various locations including its Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division (the Facility), located in Keyport, Washington. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Building 5003 at the Facility for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated October 11, 2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's October 11, 2005, license amendment request, resulting in release of Building 5003 at the Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 45-23645-01NA was issued on March 23, 1987, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center was authorized under the Navy's Master Materials License from 1987 through 1994 to use unsealed radioactive materials (Krypton 85) in a RADIFLO leak test unit at the site. From 1976 to 1987, the same licensed material was used at the site under NRC License No. 46-09611-03. Building 5003 is a one story structure, approximately 60 feet by 31 feet, with one to two foot thick outer and inner concrete walls. The RADIFLO unit was contained in a 10 by 17 foot room that was ventilated by a separate filtered air exhaust system leading to the roof and outer environs. The building is located in an isolated area of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. NRC-licensed activities performed at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center were limited to the use of Krypton 85 gas in a RADIFLO leak test unit. Impacted areas were contained within the leak test unit. The leak test unit, including the three tanks containing the Krypton 85, and exhaust venting within the room were removed. While Krypton 85 was released to the environment during operation, because it is a noble gas, no contamination remains. In 1994, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: Krypton 85. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee removed the RADIFLO unit and associated air exhaust system. The Licensee conducted a final status survey of Building 5003 on November 15, 2004. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated October 11, 2005. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. Krypton 85 is a noble gas that would only have accumulated within the RADIFLO device which was removed. The maximum radiation levels detected at the facility were at natural background levels. The NRC concludes that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has found no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, this denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Radiation Protection for review on October 31, 2006. On November 6, 2006, the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Radiation Protection responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and provided editorial comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;” 2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” 3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” 4. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;” 5. NRC License No. 45-23645-01NA inspection and licensing records; 6. Department of the Navy, Termination of Naval Radioactive Materials Permit No. 46-00253-B1NP Issued to Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport, Washington, dated October 11, 2005 (ML052970305); and 7. Department of the Navy, Final Status Survey for Naval Undersea Warfare Center and supporting documentation, dated December 15, 2004 (ML060390731). If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia this 5th day of December 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Marie Miler, Chief, Materials Security & Industrial Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-21355 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS)Meeting of the Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on January 18, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: *Thursday, January 18, 2007—8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.* The purpose of this meeting is to continue discussion on the License Renewal Application for Oyster Creek and the associated Safety Evaluation Report

(SER)prepared by the NRR staff with emphasis on the containment liner questions raised at the subcommittee meeting held on October 3, 2006. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, AmerGen Energy Company, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Michael Junge (telephone 301/415-6855) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: December 11, 2006. Antonio F. Dias, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-21366 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Required Interest Rate Assumption for Determining Variable-Rate Premium for Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Multiemployer Plan Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Notice of interest rates and assumptions. SUMMARY: This notice informs the public of the interest rates and assumptions to be used under certain Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation regulations. These rates and assumptions are published elsewhere (or can be derived from rates published elsewhere), but are collected and published in this notice for the convenience of the public. Interest rates are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: The required interest rate for determining the variable-rate premium under part 4006 applies to premium payment years beginning in December 2006. The interest assumptions for performing multiemployer plan valuations following mass withdrawal under part 4281 apply to valuation dates occurring in January 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Variable-Rate Premiums Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1) of the PBGC's regulation on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use of an assumed interest rate (the “required interest rate”) in determining a single-employer plan's variable-rate premium. Pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, for premium payment years beginning in 2006 or 2007, the required interest rate is the “applicable percentage” (currently 85 percent) of the annual rate of interest determined by the Secretary of the Treasury on amounts invested conservatively in long-term investment grade corporate bonds for the month preceding the beginning of the plan year for which premiums are being paid (the “premium payment year”). Thus, the required interest rate to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning in December 2006 is 4.90 percent (i.e., 85 percent of the 5.77 percent composite corporate bond rate for November 2006 as determined by the Treasury). The following table lists the required interest rates to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning between January 2006 and December 2006. For premium payment years beginning in: The required interest rate is: January 2006 4.86 February 2006 4.80 March 2006 4.87 April 2006 5.01 May 2006 5.25 June 2006 5.35 July 2006 5.36 August 2006 5.36 September 2006 5.19 October 2006 5.06 November 2006 5.05 December 2006 4.90 Multiemployer Plan Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal The PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) prescribes the use of interest assumptions under the PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044). The interest assumptions applicable to valuation dates in January 2007 under part 4044 are contained in an amendment to part 4044 published elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** . Tables showing the assumptions applicable to prior periods are codified in appendix B to 29 CFR part 4044. Issued in Washington, DC, on this 12th day of December 2006. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Interim Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-21441 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 27595; 812-13257] The MainStay Funds, et al.; Notice of Application December 11, 2006. AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as certain disclosure requirements. *Summary of Application:* Applicants request an order that would permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure requirements. *Applicants:* The MainStay Funds and MainStay VP Series Fund, Inc. (each a “Registrant” and together, the “Registrants”) and New York Life Investment Management LLC (“NYLIM” or the “Manager”). *Filing Dates:* The application was filed on February 1, 2006, and amended on May 2, 2006 and November 15, 2006. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice. *Hearing or Notification of Hearing:* An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on January, 5, 2007 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary. ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, c/o Marguerite E.H. Morrison, Esq., New York Life Investment Management LLC, 169 Lackawanna Ave., 3rd Floor, Parsippany, NJ 07054. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, at

(202)551-6915, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at

(202)551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone

(202)551-5850). Applicants' Representations 1. The MainStay Funds is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Each Registrant currently offers multiple series (each a “Fund”) with its own investment objectives, policies and restrictions. 1 MainStay VP Series Fund, Inc. is organized as a Maryland corporation and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Manager is a Delaware limited liability company and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) and provides investment management services to the Sub-Advised Funds pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with each Sub-Advised Fund (“Investment Advisory Agreement”). Each Investment Advisory Agreement has been approved by the Registrants' board of trustees or directors (the “Board”), including a majority of the members of the Board who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Sub-Advised Fund (“Independent Board Members”) and the shareholders of the Sub-Advised Fund at the time and in the manner required by sections 15(a) and

(c)of the Act and Rule 18f-2 under the Act. 1 Applicants also request relief with respect to:

(a)All of the Funds; and

(b)any other existing and future series of the Registrants and any other existing or future registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that wishes to rely on the relief and:

(1)Uses the “manager-of-managers” arrangement described in the application;

(2)complies with the terms and conditions of the application; and

(3)is advised by a Manager (together with the Funds, the “Sub-Advised Funds”). All references to the term “Manager” herein include

(a)NYLIM, and

(b)any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with NYLIM. All existing registered open-end management investment companies that currently intend to rely on the requested order are named as applicants. If the name of any Sub-Advised Fund contains the name of a Sub-Adviser (as defined below), the name of the Manager, including the legal name of the Manager and/or any “doing business as” or business unit names used by the Manager, will precede the name of the Sub-Adviser. 2. Under the terms of the Investment Advisory Agreement, the Manager is responsible for providing a program of continuous investment management to each Sub-Advised Fund in accordance with the investment objective, policies and limitations of the Sub-Advised Fund. The Investment Advisory Agreement also authorizes the Manager, subject to Board approval, to enter into investment sub-advisory agreements (“Sub-Advisory Agreements”) with one or more subadvisers (“Sub-Advisers”). Each Sub-Adviser is, and will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Manager monitors and evaluates the Sub-Advisers and recommends to the Board their hiring, retention or termination. Sub-Advisers recommended to the Board by the Manager have been, or will be, selected and approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members. In return for providing Sub-Adviser selection, monitoring and asset allocation services, and overall management services, the Manager will receive a fee from the Sub-Advised Fund (“Advisory Fee”). The Sub-Adviser's fees will be paid out of the Advisory Fee that a Sub-Advised Fund pays to its Manager. 3. Applicants request an order to permit the Manager, subject to approval of the applicable Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, and without obtaining shareholder approval to enter into and materially amend Sub-Advisory Agreements. The requested relief will not extend to any Sub-Adviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Sub-Advised Fund or of a Manager, other than by reason of serving as a Sub-Adviser to one or more of the Sub-Advised Funds (“Affiliated Sub-Adviser”). 4. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure provisions described below that may require a Sub-Advised Fund to disclose fees paid by the Manager to each Sub-Adviser. An exemption is requested to permit each Sub-Advised Fund to disclose (as both a dollar amount and as a percentage of the Sub-Advised Fund's net assets):

(a)the aggregate fees paid to the Manager and any Affiliated Sub-Advisers; and

(b)the aggregate fees paid to Sub-Advisers other than Affiliated Sub-Advisers (collectively, “Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). For any Sub-Advised Fund that employs an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Fund will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the Affiliated Sub-Adviser. Applicants' Legal Analysis 1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except under a written contract that has been approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such matter if the Act requires shareholder approval. 2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 14(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of the method and amount of an investment adviser's compensation. 3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees. 4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to their investment advisers, including the Sub-Advisers. 5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of investment company registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and

(c)of Regulation S-X require that investment companies include in their financial statements information about investment advisory fees. 6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that their requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below. 7. Applicants assert that the shareholders of a Sub-Advised Fund are relying on the Manager's experience to select one or more Sub-Advisers best suited to achieve the Sub-Advised Fund's investment objectives. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the investor, the role of the Sub-Advisers is comparable to that of the individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment company advisory firms. Applicants state that requiring shareholder approval of each Sub-Advisory Agreement would impose costs and unnecessary delays on the Sub-Advised Funds, and may preclude the Manager from acting promptly in a manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants note that the Investment Advisory Agreement and any Sub-Advisory Agreement with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser will remain subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act. 8. Applicants assert that some Sub-Advisers use a “posted” rate schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that while Sub-Advisers are willing to negotiate fees that are lower than those posted on the schedule, they are reluctant to do so where the fees are disclosed to other prospective and existing customers. Applicants submit that the requested relief will allow the Manager to negotiate more effectively with each Sub-Adviser. Applicants' Conditions Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions: 1. Before a Sub-Advised Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of the Sub-Advised Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by a majority of the Sub-Advised Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Sub-Advised Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial shareholder before offering the Sub-Advised Fund's shares to the public. 2. Each Sub-Advised Fund will disclose in its prospectus the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. In addition, each Sub-Advised Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the manager of managers arrangement described in the application. The prospectus relating to each Sub-Advised Fund will prominently disclose that its Manager has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Sub-Advisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement. 3. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser, the applicable Manager will furnish shareholders all information about the new Sub-Adviser that would be included in a proxy statement, except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This information will include Aggregate Fee Disclosure and any change in such disclosure caused by the addition of the new Sub-Adviser. To meet this condition, the Manager will provide shareholders of the applicable Sub-Advised Fund within 90 days of the hiring of a new Sub-Adviser with an information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C, and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the 1934 Act, except as modified by the order to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. 4. The Manager will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement with any Affiliated Sub-Adviser unless that agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, has been approved by the shareholders of the applicable Sub-Advised Fund. 5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Board Members and the nomination of new or additional Independent Board Members will be at the discretion of the then existing Independent Board Members. 6. When a change of Sub-Adviser is proposed for a Sub-Advised Fund with an Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Board Members, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Sub-Advised Fund and its shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Manager or an Affiliated Sub-Adviser derives an inappropriate advantage. 7. The Manager will provide general management services to each Sub-Advised Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of each Sub-Advised Fund's assets, and, subject to review and approval by the Board, will, for each Sub-Advised Fund:

(a)Set the Sub-Advised Fund's overall investment strategies;

(b)evaluate, select and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage all or a part of the Sub-Advised Fund's assets;

(c)when appropriate, allocate and reallocate the Sub-Advised Fund's assets among multiple Sub-Advisers;

(d)monitor and evaluate the Sub-Advisers' investment performance; and

(e)implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance by the Sub-Advisers with the Sub-Advised Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions. 8. No director, trustee or officer of a Sub-Advised Fund, or director or officer of the Manager, will own, directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle over which such person does not have control), any interest in a Sub-Adviser, except for:

(a)ownership of interests in the Manager or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Manager, or

(b)ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Sub-Adviser. 9. Each Sub-Advised Fund will disclose in its registration statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure. 10. Independent Legal Counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Board Members. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then existing Independent Board Members. 11. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule 15a-5 under the Act, if adopted. 12. The Manager will provide the Boards, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Manager on a per-Sub-Advised Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Adviser during the applicable quarter. 13. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, the Manager will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Manager. For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21342 Filed 12-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of December 18, 2006: A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 10 a.m. Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B) and

(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (9)(ii), and

(10)permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 19, 2006 will be: formal orders of investigation; institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; a collection matter; an adjudicatory matter; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: December 12, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-9739 Filed 12-12-06; 3:51 pm]

Connectionstraces to 28

Traces to 28 documents

U.S. Code