7–20–06 Thursday Vol. 71 No. 139 July 20, 2006

Pages 41091–41344

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:15 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\20JYWS.LOC 20JYWS wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRWS II Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.archives.gov. FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO USE IT established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge as one of the databases WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register. on GPO Access, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present: The online edition of the Federal Register www.gpoaccess.gov/ nara, available through GPO Access, is issued under the authority 1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the Register system and the public’s role in the development official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 of regulations. U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and 2. The relationship between the Federal Register and graphics from Volume 59, Number 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. Code of Federal Regulations. For more information about GPO Access, contact the GPO Access 3. The important elements of typical Federal Register doc- User Support Team, call toll free 1-888-293-6498; DC area 202- uments. 512-1530; fax at 202-512-1262; or via e-mail at [email protected]. 4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR sys- The Support Team is available between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. tem. Eastern Time, Monday–Friday, except official holidays. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper WHY: To provide the public with access to information nec- edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined essary to research Federal agency regulations which di- Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections rectly affect them. There will be no discussion of specific Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal agency regulations. Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, llllllllllllllllll plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to WHEN: Tuesday, August 8, 2006 orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, 9:00 a.m.–Noon is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing WHERE: Office of the Federal Register less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues Conference Room, Suite 700 of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, 800 North Capitol Street, NW. including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable Washington, DC 20002 to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or RESERVATIONS: (202) 741–6008 Discover. Mail to: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954; or call toll free 1-866- 512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 71 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:15 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\20JYWS.LOC 20JYWS wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRWS III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 139

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Agriculture Department Education Department See Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension NOTICES Service Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: See Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Elementary and secondary education— Administration Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students Program, 41210

Antitrust Division Energy Department NOTICES See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Competitive impact statements and proposed consent judgments: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Inco Ltd. and Falconbridge Ltd., 41237–41249 PROPOSED RULES McClatchy Co., and Knight-Ridder, Inc., 41249–41257 Consumer products; energy conservation program: National cooperative research notifications: Residential central air conditioners and heat pumps; test DVD Copy Control Association, 41257 procedure, 41320–41344 Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc., 41257–41258 Environmental Protection Agency Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc., 41258 RULES Air programs: Army Department Stratospheric ozone protection— NOTICES Hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs) production, import, Inventions, Government-owned; availability for licensing, and export; allowance system, 41163–41172 41209–41210 Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: New York, 41162–41163 Arts and Humanities, National Foundation PROPOSED RULES See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Air programs: Stratospheric ozone protection— Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Hydrochloroflurocarbons (HCFCs) production, import, NOTICES and export; allowance system, 41192–41196 Agency information collection activities; proposals, NOTICES submissions, and approvals, 41219–41220 Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 41210–41216 Water pollution control: Coast Guard Marine sanitation device standard; petitions, NOTICES determinations, etc.— Meetings: Massachusetts, 41216–41217 Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, 41226– Total maximum daily loads— 41227 Louisiana, 41217–41218

Executive Office of the President Commerce Department See Presidential Documents See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Aviation Administration RULES Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements Airworthiness directives: NOTICES Airbus, 41109–41113, 41118–41121 Textile and apparel categories: Boeing, 41113–41116 Commercial availability actions— Honeywell International Inc., 41121–41125 Encajes S.A. Colombia; polyester and nylon yarns; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 41116–41118 articles containing lace fabrics, 41208–41209 Airworthiness standards: Special conditions— Avidyne Corp., Inc.; various airplane models, 41104– Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 41108 Service Cirrus Design Corp. Model SR22 airplanes, 41099– NOTICES 41101 Agency information collection activities; proposals, Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques Engines, Inc., submissions, and approvals, 41197 Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes, 41101– 41104 PROPOSED RULES Defense Department Airworthiness standards: See Army Department Engine bird ingestion, 41184–41192

VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20JYCN.SGM 20JYCN wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCN IV Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Contents

NOTICES Health and Human Services Department Aeronautical land-use assurance; waivers: See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cambridge Municipal Airport, OH, 41307 See Food and Drug Administration Passenger facility charges; applications, etc.: See Health Resources and Services Administration City of Atlanta, GA, et al., 41307–41310 See National Institutes of Health Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services National Environmental Policy Act implementing Administration instructions for airport actions, 41310 Health Resources and Services Administration Federal Communications Commission NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 41218–41219 Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages Advisory Committee, 41223 Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Homeland Security Department Flood insurance; communities eligible for sale: See Coast Guard Various States, 41172–41177 See Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Disaster and emergency areas: Interior Department Delaware, 41227–41228 See Land Management Bureau Louisiana, 41228 See National Park Service Maryland, 41228 See Reclamation Bureau Mississippi, 41228–41229 New Jersey, 41229 Internal Revenue Service New York, 41229–41231 NOTICES Ohio, 41231 Meetings: Pennsylvania, 41231–41233 Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, 41316 Federal Highway Administration International Trade Administration NOTICES NOTICES Environmental statements; notice of intent: Antidumping: Hamilton County, OH and Kenton County, KY, 41310 Frozen warmwater shrimp from— National Outdoor Advertising Control Program Assessment; Brazil, 41199–41200 comment request, 41258–41260 Ecuador, 41198–41199 Thailand, 41200–41201 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Polyester staple fiber from— NOTICES China, 41201–41205 Motor carrier safety standards: Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from- Driver qualifications; vision requirement exemptions, Malaysia, 41205–41206 41310–41313 Justice Department Federal Railroad Administration See Antitrust Division NOTICES Exemption petitions, etc.: Labor Department Amtrak, 41313 See Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Federal Reserve System Land Management Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Coal leases, exploration licenses, etc.: Change in bank control, 41219 Montana, 41233–41234 Permissible nonbanking activities, 41219 Environmental statements; record of decision: Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan and Green Food and Drug Administration River Resource Management Plan, WY, 41234 RULES Color additives: Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Mica-based pearlescent pigments, 41125–41127 Environmental Policy Foundation NOTICES NOTICES Meetings: National Outdoor Advertising Control Program Assessment; Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 41220 comment request, 41258–41260 Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, 41220– 41221 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: NOTICES Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards, Environmental statements; availability, etc.: 41221–41223 Crew exploration vehicle development, 41260–41261 Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES NOTICES Agency designation actions: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Texas, 41198 submissions, and approvals, 41261–41263

VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20JYCN.SGM 20JYCN wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCN Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Contents V

National Institutes of Health Reclamation Bureau NOTICES NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, Environmental statements; notice of intent: submissions, and approvals, 41223–41225 Milltown Hill Project, OR, 41236–41237 Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Securities and Exchange Commission 41225 NOTICES National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Agency information collection activities; proposals, 41225–41226 submissions, and approvals, 41280–41283 Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration American Stock Exchange LLC, 41283–41287 RULES Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 41287–41289 Fishery conservation and management: Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 41289–41291 Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 41291–41305 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands squid, 41178 NYSE Arca, Inc., 41305–41306 Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Tilefish, 41177–41178 State Department NOTICES Endangered and threatened species: RULES Recovery plans— Acquisition regulations: Steller sea lion, 41206–41207 Miscellaneous amendments Environmental statements; notice of intent: Correction, 41177 South Atlantic deepwater snapper grouper species; NOTICES marine protected areas; establishment, 41207 Organization, functions, and authority delegations: Marine mammals: Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 41306–41307 Taking and importing— El Salvador; yellowfin tuna harvested in Eastern Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Tropical Pacific Ocean; affirmative finding Administration renewed, 41207–41208 NOTICES National Park Service Meetings: NOTICES Substance Abuse Treatment Center National Advisory Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Council, 41226 Minidoka Internment National Monument, ID; general Women’s Services Advisory Committee, 41226 management plan, 41234–41236 Surface Transportation Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES NOTICES Railroad operation, acquisition, construction, etc.: Agency information collection activities; proposals, BNSF Railway Co., 41313–41314 submissions, and approvals, 41263 Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 41314 Meetings: Nuclear Waste Advisory Committee, 41263–41264 Textile Agreements Implementation Committee Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Combustion engineering plant; risk-inform requirements Agreements regarding exigent plant shutdown; consolidated line item process; technical specification improvement, Thrift Supervision Office 41264–41280 PROPOSED RULES Mutual-to-stock conversions and mutual holding company Occupational Safety and Health Administration structures; stock benefit plans, 41179–41184 RULES Construction and occupational safety and health standards: Transportation Department Roll-over protective structures; corrections and technical See Federal Aviation Administration amendments, 41127–41161 See Federal Highway Administration See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Personnel Management Office See Federal Railroad Administration RULES See Surface Transportation Board Notification and Federal Employees Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002; implementation and training, Treasury Department 41095–41099 See Internal Revenue Service Presidential Documents See Thrift Supervision Office NOTICES PROCLAMATIONS Special observances: Agency information collection activities; proposals, Captive Nations Week (Proc. 8036), 41091–41092 submissions, and approvals, 41314–41316 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Liberia; continuation of national emergency blocking U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission property of certain persons and prohibiting the NOTICES importation of certain goods (Notice of July 18, 2006), Hearings, 41316–41317 41093–41094

VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20JYCN.SGM 20JYCN wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCN VI Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Contents

Separate Parts In This Issue Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, Part II and notice of recently enacted public laws. Energy Department, Energy Efficiency and Renewable To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Energy Office, 41320–41344 LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\20JYCN.SGM 20JYCN wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCN Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR Proclamations: 8036...... 41091 Executive Orders: 13348 (See Notice of July 18, 2006) ...... 41093 Administrative Orders: Notices Notice of July 18, 2006 ...... 41093 5 CFR 724...... 41095 10 CFR Proposed Rules: 430...... 41320 12 CFR Proposed Rules: 563b...... 41179 575...... 41179 14 CFR 23 (3 documents) ...... 41099, 41101, 41104 39 (5 documents) ...... 41109, 41113, 41116, 41118, 41121 Proposed Rules: 33...... 41184 21 CFR 73...... 41125 29 CFR 1926...... 41127 1928...... 41127 40 CFR 52...... 41162 82...... 41163 Proposed Rules: 82...... 41192 44 CFR 64...... 41172 48 CFR 652...... 41177 50 CFR 622...... 41177 679...... 41178

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\20JYLS.LOC 20JYLS wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRLS 41091

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 71, No. 139

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Title 3— Proclamation 8036 of July 13, 2006

The President Captive Nations Week, 2006

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

The best hope for peace is the expansion of freedom throughout the world. During Captive Nations Week, we reaffirm our commitment to advancing liberty, protecting human rights, and helping people realize the great promise of democracy. In proclaiming the first Captive Nations Week in 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower said that ‘‘the citizens of the United States are linked by bonds of family and principle to those who love freedom and justice on every continent.’’ Over the past five decades, the force of human freedom has overcome hatred and resentment and overthrown tyrants in nations around the globe. Freedom is on the march, and today more people live in liberty than ever before. The advance of freedom is the story of our time, and we have witnessed remarkable democratic progress in recent years. The people of Afghanistan elected their first democratic parliament in more than a generation. The people of Kyrgyzstan drove a corrupt regime from power and voted for democratic change. Ending 16 years of civil war and interim governments, the people of Liberia were able to go to the polls, electing Africa’s first female president. The courageous citizens of Iraq reached yet another impor- tant milestone in their journey towards democracy by forming a national unity government based upon the constitution they approved last October. In Lebanon, citizens recovered their independence and chose their members of parliament in free elections. That newfound independence has come under attack in recent days from terrorists and their state sponsors, who see freedom and democracy as a threat. The United States and its allies will stand with those in Lebanon who continue to struggle for their independ- ence and sovereignty and who refuse to give over their country to extremism and terror. At this critical time in the history of freedom, no nation can evade the demands of human dignity. In countries like Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Burma, Syria, Zimbabwe, and Cuba, governments must become accountable to their citizens and embrace democracy. The desire for freedom is written in every human heart, and we can be confident that in this century freedom will continue to prevail. This week is also an opportunity to honor those who have stood against oppression and advanced the fundamental right of all to live in liberty. The courage and sacrifice of these men and women reflect the fact that tyranny can never destroy the desire to be free. Inspired by their example, we will carry on their work to help others realize the universal gift of liberty and to spread the light of democracy to every corner of the world. The Congress, by Joint Resolution approved July 17, 1959 (73 Stat. 212), has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation desig- nating the third week in July of each year as ‘‘Captive Nations Week.’’ NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 16 through July 22, 2006, as Captive

VerDate Aug<31>2005 08:06 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\20JYD0.SGM 20JYD0 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 41092 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Presidential Documents

Nations Week. I call upon the people of the United States to reaffirm their commitment to all those seeking liberty, justice, and self-determination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. W

[FR Doc. 06–6403 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 08:06 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\20JYD0.SGM 20JYD0 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES2 41093

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 71, No. 139

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Title 3— Notice of July 18, 2006

The President Continuation of the National Emergency Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia

On July 22, 2004, by Executive Order 13348, I declared a national emergency and ordered related measures blocking the property of certain persons and prohibiting the importation of certain goods from Liberia, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706). I took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of former Liberian President Charles Taylor and other persons, in particular their unlawful depletion of Liberian resources and their removal from Liberia and secreting of Liberian funds and property, which have undermined Libe- ria’s transition to democracy and the orderly development of its political, administrative, and economic institutions and resources. I further noted that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed on August 18, 2003, and the related ceasefire had not yet been universally implemented throughout Liberia, and that the illicit trade in round logs and timber products was linked to the proliferation of and trafficking in illegal arms, which perpet- uated the Liberian conflict and fueled and exacerbated other conflicts throughout West Africa. Today, Liberia is making a transition to a peaceful, democratic order under the new administration of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Charles Taylor is in the custody of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague. However, the stability in Liberia is fragile. The actions and policies of Charles Taylor and others have left a legacy of destruction that still has the potential to undermine Liberia’s transformation and recovery. Because the actions and policies of these persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on July 22, 2004, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond July 22, 2006. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13348.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:10 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\20JYO0.SGM 20JYO0 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES3 41094 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Presidential Documents

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. W THE WHITE HOUSE, July 18, 2006. [FR Doc. 06–6404 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:10 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\20JYO0.SGM 20JYO0 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES3 41095

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 139

Thursday, July 20, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Federal employment of their rights Several commenters suggested that contains regulatory documents having general under antidiscrimination and the definition of whistleblower applicability and legal effect, most of which whistleblower protection laws, protection laws be expanded to cover are keyed to and codified in the Code of combined with training of current whistleblower protections under other Federal Regulations, which is published under employees, should increase Federal laws, e.g., Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. agency compliance with the laws. Water Act, and others. The No FEAR The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Congress entrusted the President with Act does not directly refer to the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of the authority to promulgate rules to whistleblower protections other than new books are listed in the first FEDERAL carry out this title, and the President, in those established by the Whistleblower REGISTER issue of each week. turn, delegated to OPM the authority to Protection Act of 1989, as amended. issue regulations to implement the Again, the regulations address those notification and training provisions of matters directly identified in the No OFFICE OF PERSONNEL Title II of the No FEAR Act, Public Law FEAR Act. Thus, the suggestion is not MANAGEMENT 107–174. These regulations carry out adopted. that authority. 5 CFR Part 724 Comments on Notification Obligations Introduction RIN 3206–AK38 The proposed regulations prescribed On February 28, 2005, OPM the ‘‘time, form, and manner’’ of the Implementation of Title II of the published at 70 FR 9544 (2005) a notices to employees, former employees, Notification and Federal Employee proposed rule implementing the and applicants as required by section Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act notification and training provisions of 202 of the No FEAR Act. The proposal of 2002—Notification & Training the No FEAR Act and providing a 60- included model paragraphs for agencies day comment period. On May 26, 2005, to use and proposed the time frames for AGENCY: Office of Personnel OPM at 70 FR 30380 (2005) extended the notification process. Management. the comment period to June 28, 2005. Several commenters asked that OPM ACTION: Final rule. OPM received 18 comments from clarify what is meant by ‘‘former Federal agencies or departments, 6 employee’’ in terms of agencies’ SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel comments from union representatives, obligation to notify former employees Management (OPM) is issuing final and 15 comments from others, including about their rights under Federal regulations to carry out the notification the No FEAR Coalition. OPM commends antidiscrimination and whistleblower and training requirements of the and thanks all who have provided protection laws. In this regard, the Notification and Federal Employees comments on this important topic, and commenters wanted to know how long Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act OPM has carefully considered each after an employee left an agency would of 2002 (No FEAR Act). This rule will comment. it be until the agency’s obligation to implement the notice and training notify him or her expires. OPM notes provisions of the No FEAR Act. Comments on Definitions that the No FEAR Act makes no DATES: Effective September 18, 2006. The proposed regulations defined the distinction about former employees and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary following terms that are used in the when they are to be notified, that is, D. Wahlert by telephone at (202) 606– regulations: ‘‘antidiscrimination laws,’’ there is no time limitation on former 2930; by FAX at (202) 606–2613; or by ‘‘whistleblower protection laws,’’ employees’ rights to be notified under e-mail at [email protected]. ‘‘notice,’’ and ‘‘training.’’ the Act. OPM also notes, however, that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Several commenters suggested that the proposed rule did not require the definition of antidiscrimination laws agencies to contact former employees Background be expanded to cover matters under 5 and applicants individually but could The United States and its citizens are U.S.C. 2302(b)(10) in order to include provide notice though other means, e.g., best served when the Federal workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual posting a notice on agencies’ Web sites. is free of discrimination and retaliation. orientation as a form of prohibited The final rule has been revised to make In order to maintain a productive discrimination under the No FEAR Act. this clearer by requiring that the initial workplace that is fully engaged with the Some stated that Executive Order 13087 notice be published in the Federal many important missions before the (amending Executive Order 11478, Register and the same notice be posted Government, Congress noted that it is ‘‘Equal Employment Opportunity in the on each agency’s Web site. essential that the rights of employees, Federal Government’’) prohibits Several commenters requested a former employees and applicants for discrimination on the basis of sexual clearer explanation of agency notice Federal employment under Federal orientation. OPM notes that the No obligations and how they are to meet antidiscrimination and whistleblower FEAR Act does not directly refer to 5 them. Some commenters requested that protection laws be steadfastly protected. U.S.C. 2302(b)(10) as a law covered by the regulations clarify agency Congress also stated that agencies the Act or refer to Executive Order responsibilities to post notices through cannot be run effectively if those 13087 (or 11478) as being covered by the Federal Register process. One agencies practice or tolerate the Act. The regulations address those commenter suggested that OPM post a discrimination. Congress has found that matters directly identified in the No government-wide notice through this notification of present and former FEAR Act. Therefore, the suggestion is process on behalf of all agencies. OPM Federal employees and applicants for not adopted. notes that the Federal Register process

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41096 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

was identified as an approved means to agencies are obligated to provide regulations would satisfy the meet notification obligations under the requested notices in alternative, notification requirements of the No Fear Act in those cases where the agency accessible formats to the extent required Act. does not have a Web site and the by law. One commenter suggested that the regulations have been clarified in this Several commenters suggested that proposed model language stating that regard. Because the notice obligation the model language describing the bases ‘‘you may pursue a discrimination rests with individual agencies, however, for prohibited discrimination be complaint by filing a grievance through OPM declines to adopt the suggestion expanded to include sexual orientation. your agency’s administrative or that OPM post a government-wide As noted previously in discussing the negotiated grievance procedures, if such notice. At a minimum, agencies are definition of antidiscrimination laws, procedures apply and are available’’ is required to include in their notices the OPM has decided not to expand the in error. The commenter asserted that text required by these regulations but regulations beyond the express terms of allegations of discrimination cannot be may also add additional text in light of the No FEAR Act; thus the suggestion is addressed by an agency’s administrative their individual agency circumstances. not adopted. Similar suggestions that grievance procedure. While OPM’s The final regulation also draws the model language include references former rules on administrative grievance distinctions between the notice for to types of whistleblowing other than procedures prohibited such coverage, employees and notice for former that protected by the Whistleblower OPM eliminated that restriction ten employees and applicants. Finally, one Protection Act of 1989, as amended, are years ago (see 60 FR 47040, September commenter asked whether a single not adopted because OPM has decided 11, 1995), and some agencies do provide posting on an agency’s Internet Web site not to expand the regulations as for such coverage in their administrative would meet the initial notification previously discussed. grievance procedure. One commenter suggested as requirements of section 724.202(e) of Comments on Training Obligations the proposed rule. OPM’s response is unnecessary the last sentence in the The proposed regulations prescribed that it would not. The final rules require ‘‘Disciplinary Actions’’ portion of the the requirements for Federal agencies to that all agencies’ initial notices be model language that states agencies may provide training under section 202 of published in the Federal Register. In not take unfounded disciplinary actions. the No FEAR Act to all their employees addition, all agencies with Web sites are OPM believes it is important to state regarding their rights and remedies required to place the same notices on clearly that the No FEAR Act does not under Federal antidiscrimination and their sites where they are to remain change existing laws with respect to whistleblower protection laws. The until replaced or revised. taking disciplinary actions. As the No FEAR Act states in section 102, proposed regulations called for agencies Several commenters suggested that increased accountability under the Act to develop written plans for meeting agencies be afforded discretion and is not furthered ‘‘by taking unfounded their training obligations under the Act flexibility to modify the proposed model disciplinary actions against managers or and prescribed time limits for providing notice language to fit their needs rather by violating the procedural rights of the training. than be required to use the model managers.’’ Thus, OPM does not adopt A commenter noted that some of the language verbatim. Because the notice the suggestion. time frames in the regulations were obligation applies governmentwide, OPM also made a technical change to expressed in ‘‘business days’’ while OPM believes that the required the ‘‘Disciplinary Actions’’ portion of others used ‘‘calendar days’’ and information established by these the model language to clarify the suggested that the final rule use regulations should be consistent circumstances in which disciplinary consistent terminology. OPM agrees that governmentwide. This would eliminate action may be appropriate. Accordingly, consistency within the regulations any confusion that might be created if the final rule states that employees may promotes better understanding and content varied from agency to agency. be disciplined for conduct inconsistent therefore adopts the suggestion. As a Therefore, OPM does not adopt the with Federal antidiscrimination and result, the time frames in the final suggestion and agencies are required to whistleblower protection laws. regulations have been modified to use use the model language contained in the Several commenters requested the term calendar days in all cases and regulations. While the required clarification of the relationship of the the number of calendar days adjusted to information would be consistent No FEAR Act notification process to the reflect a comparable amount of actual governmentwide, OPM notes that Office of Special Counsel (OSC) time as proposed, e.g., 90 calendar days agencies have the authority under the certification program which calls for instead of 60 business days. regulations to provide additional agencies to inform employees about One commenter suggested that the information within the notice. One their whistleblower protection rights. word ‘‘content’’ be replaced in section commenter noted that the proposed During the development of the proposed 724.203(b) of the proposed regulations section 724.202(f) would require regulations, OPM consulted OSC on this concerning training plans because the agencies to provide a notice in issue and we agreed there is overlap ‘‘content’’ of training is already set by alternative, accessible formats if between the two notification programs, the No FEAR Act itself, i.e., training on requested by employees, former with the No FEAR Act notification the rights and remedies available under employees and applicants. The obligation being broader. As a result, a the Antidiscrimination Laws and commenter was concerned that this properly completed notice under the No Whistleblower Protection Laws. OPM might be read to impose requirements FEAR Act might also meet that agency’s agrees and adopts the suggestion, beyond those covered in section 508 of obligations under OSC’s certification changing ‘‘content’’ to ‘‘training the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as program. Agencies are cautioned, materials’’ as a necessary element to be amended. OPM notes that section 508 is however, to verify with OSC that their described in each agency’s training limited to electronic materials and the specific No FEAR notification process in plan. regulations address other materials such fact does meet the requirements of the In another reference to the content of as (non-electronic) written notices. OSC’s program. An agency’s OSC- agency training, a second commenter Therefore, OPM has not deleted the approved notice that includes the noted that section 102(5)(B) of the No section but has modified it to state that minimum model language in these FEAR Act provides that ‘‘Federal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41097

agencies should ensure that managers appropriate method(s) of training for initial training, e.g., the logistics of have adequate training in the their employees. OPM therefore training large numbers of employees, management of a diverse workforce and declines to adopt this suggestion. the burdens on small agencies, and the in dispute resolution and other essential One commenter noted that the Federal budget request cycle. OPM communication skills.’’ This provision proposed regulations appeared to believes, however, that on-going is part of a number of items in the Act require agencies to incorporate No training is essential to maintaining a reflecting the ‘‘Sense of Congress’’; FEAR Act training into their new workforce that is knowledgeable about however, this language is not repeated employee orientation programs if they its rights and remedies under these in the Act’s section 202(c) which have such programs. While agencies laws. Accordingly, OPM is retaining the independently prescribes the content of may do so (and OPM believes this may two-year training cycle as proposed. agency training. Training on dispute be an efficient vehicle for agencies to resolution and communications skills, meet their training obligations), OPM Miscellaneous Comments for example, may be beneficial, and did not intend to prevent agencies from One commenter suggested that OPM agencies are free to include such topics conducting other training for new issue regulations concerning the in their training programs. Such topics employees outside of the orientation discipline of employees for violations of are not, however, required under the process. OPM’s intent instead is to Federal antidiscrimination and Act and OPM declines to require such ensure that if training is not done during whistleblower protection laws. OPM training as part of agencies’ obligation to a new employee orientation, it is notes that section 204 of Title II of the train employees on the rights and completed within 90 calendar days after No FEAR Act requires the President or remedies available under the an employee enters on duty. Therefore, his designee (OPM) to conduct a study Antidiscrimination Laws and OPM has modified the regulation to of agency best practices in taking such Whistleblower Protection Laws. clarify that agencies may train new disciplinary actions and then to develop In addition to the above specific employees on the rights and remedies advisory guidelines for agencies to issues, a number of commenters under Federal antidiscrimination and follow in taking action. Because the No suggested that OPM review and/or whistleblower protection laws using FEAR Act (through delegation by the approve agency training programs, new employee orientation programs or President) already assigns this similar provide an oversight/enforcement other training programs as long as the responsibility to OPM, the suggestion is mechanism on training, and receive applicable training program is not adopted. periodic reports from agencies. Some completed within 90 calendar days after commenters suggested that the No FEAR an employee enters on duty. Regulatory Flexibility Act Coalition be a part of an OPM review Many commenters expressed concern I certify that this regulation will not process of agency training plans. OPM about the proposed requirement that have a significant economic impact on notes that under section 724.302(a)(9) of agencies complete initial training of a substantial number of small entities the proposed rule, each agency will be their employees under the No FEAR Act because the regulations pertain only to required to report on their written plan by September 30, 2005. Their concerns Federal employees and agencies. developed under 724.203(a) of this final include the logistics of training large rule. Copies of the agency’s report will numbers of employees in a short time, E.O. 12866, Regulatory Review be provided to Members of Congress, the burden on small agencies with This final rule has been reviewed by the Chair of the EEOC, the Attorney limited resources, and the Federal the Office of Management and Budget General and the Director of OPM. This budget request cycle. A number of under Executive Order 12866. reporting mechanism will provide an commenters suggested that September appropriate level of oversight; therefore 30, 2006, would be a more feasible date E.O. 13132 the suggestions are not adopted. for completing initial training. One This regulation will not have Several commenters suggested that commenter suggested moving the initial substantial direct effects on the States, the Equal Employment Opportunity training date to 2007. Other on the relationship between the Commission and the Office of Special commenters, including the No FEAR National Government and the States, or Counsel develop training programs that Coalition, however, expressed their on distribution of power and agencies could use to meet their training deep concern about the amount of time responsibilities among the various obligations. OPM notes that the No already expended in developing the levels of government. Therefore, in FEAR Act did not task these agencies regulations governing training. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, with that responsibility, and OPM will balancing these concerns, OPM notes it is determined that this rule does not not do so. Agencies, however, may seek the importance Congress has attached to have sufficient federalism implications assistance and information from these the training obligation, and concludes to warrant preparation of a Federalism agencies. that it is imperative that agencies be Assessment. One commenter recommended that allowed sufficient time to develop and the final rule clarify that, while agencies deliver to employees the quality training E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform are required to train their employees, that they deserve and to which they are This regulation meets the applicable this requirement does not extend to entitled under the Act. Therefore, OPM standard set forth in sections 3(a) and contract employees. OPM believes that has decided to require that initial 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. the language is clear on its face that only training be completed within 90 days of Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of current Federal employees are to be the effective date of these regulations. 1995 trained; thus OPM does not adopt the Several commenters expressed recommendation. concern about the proposed rule’s This rule will not result in the One commenter suggested that OPM requirement for a two-year training expenditure by State, local and tribal require agencies to conduct face-to-face cycle after the initial training is governments, in the aggregate, or by the training as opposed to other types of completed. Some recommended no private sector, of $100,000,000 or more training, e.g., computer-based training. additional training and another in any one year, and it will not OPM has determined that it is best left recommended a five-year cycle. OPM significantly or uniquely affect small to agencies to decide the most has taken into account comments on the governments. Therefore, no actions were

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41098 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

deemed necessary under the provisions remedies applicable to such employees electronic form (e.g., e-mail, internal of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act under the Federal Antidiscrimination agency electronic site, or Internet Web of 1995. Laws and Whistleblower Protection site). Each agency must publish the Laws. initial notice in the Federal Register. Congressional Review Act Whistleblower Protection Laws refers Agencies with Internet Web sites must This action pertains to agency to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8) or 5 U.S.C. also post the notice on those Web sites, management, personnel and 2302(b)(9) as applied to conduct in compliance with section 508 of the organization and does not substantially described in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. affect the rights or obligations of non- I 3. A new subpart B to Part 724 is For agencies with components that agency parties and, accordingly, is not added to read as follows: operate Internet Web sites, the notice a ‘‘rule’’ as that term is used by the must be made available by hyperlinks Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of Subpart B—Notification of Rights and from the Internet Web sites of both the the Small Business Regulatory Protections and Training component and the parent agency. An Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 agency may meet its paper and (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting Sec. 724.201 Purpose and scope. electronic notice obligation to former requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 724.202 Notice obligations. employees and applicants by publishing apply. 724.203 Training obligations. the initial notice in the Federal Register List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 724 and posting the notice on its Internet § 724.201 Purpose and scope. Web site if it has one. Administrative practice and (a) This subpart implements Title II of (f) To the extent required by law and procedure, Civil rights, Claims. the Notification and Federal Employee upon request by employees, former U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act employees and applicants, each agency Linda M. Springer, of 2002 concerning the obligation of must provide the notice in alternative, Director. Federal agencies to notify all employees, accessible formats. former employees, and applicants for I Accordingly, OPM amends part 724 of (g) Unless an agency is exempt from Federal employment of the rights and title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as the cited statutory provisions, the protections available to them under the follows: following is the minimum text to be Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and included in the notice. Each agency may PART 724—IMPLEMENTATION OF Whistleblower Protection Laws. This incorporate additional information TITLE II OF THE NOTIFICATION AND subpart also implements Title II within the model paragraphs, as FEDERAL EMPLOYEE concerning the obligation of agencies to appropriate. train their employees on such rights and ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND Model Paragraphs RETALIATION ACT OF 2002 remedies. The regulations describe agency obligations and the procedures No Fear Act Notice I 1. The authority citation for part 724 for written notification and training. On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the continues to read as follows: (b) Pursuant to section 205 of the No ‘‘Notification and Federal Employee Authority: Sec. 204 of Public Law 107–174; FEAR Act, neither that Act nor this Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of Presidential Memorandum dated July 8, notice creates, expands or reduces any 2002,’’ which is now known as the No FEAR 2003, ‘‘Delegation of Authority Under rights otherwise available to any Act. One purpose of the Act is to ‘‘require Section 204(a) of the Notification and Federal employee, former employee or applicant that Federal agencies be accountable for Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2002.’’ under the laws of the United States, violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.’’ Public Law including the provisions of law 107–174, Summary. In support of this Subpart A—Reimbursement of specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). Judgment Fund purpose, Congress found that ‘‘agencies § 724.202 Notice obligations. cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.’’ Public I 2. In § 724.102 of subpart A, add new (a) Each agency must provide notice definitions for Antidiscrimination Laws, Law 107–174, Title I, General Provisions, to all of its employees, former section 101(1). Notice, Training, and Whistleblower employees, and applicants for Federal The Act also requires this agency to Protection Laws in alphabetical order to employment about the rights and provide this notice to Federal employees, read as follows: remedies available under the former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the § 724.102 Definitions. Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws rights and protections available to you under * * * * * Federal antidiscrimination and Antidiscrimination Laws refers to 5 applicable to them. (b) The notice under this part must be whistleblower protection laws. U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) as titled, ‘‘No FEAR Act Notice.’’ Antidiscrimination Laws applied to conduct described in 5 U.S.C. (c) Each agency must provide initial A Federal agency cannot discriminate 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. notice within 60 calendar days after 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and against an employee or applicant with September 18, 2006. Thereafter, the respect to the terms, conditions or privileges 42 U.S.C. 2000e–16. notice must be provided by the end of of employment on the basis of race, color, * * * * * each successive fiscal year and any religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, Notice means the written information posted materials must remain in place marital status or political affiliation. provided by Federal agencies about the until replaced or revised. Discrimination on these bases is prohibited rights and protections available under (d) After the initial notice, each by one or more of the following statutes: 5 Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and agency must provide the notice to new U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. Whistleblower Protection Laws. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 employees within 90 calendar days of U.S.C. 2000e–16. * * * * * entering on duty. If you believe that you have been the Training means the process by which (e) Each agency must provide the victim of unlawful discrimination on the Federal agencies instruct their notice to its employees in paper (e.g., basis of race, color, religion, sex, national employees regarding the rights and letter, poster or brochure) and/or origin or disability, you must contact an

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41099

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) that is inconsistent with Federal employees as part of its agency counselor within 45 calendar days of the Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower orientation program or other training alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case Protection Laws up to and including program. Any agency that does not use of a personnel action, within 45 calendar removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation a new employee orientation program for days of the effective date of the action, before under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to you can file a formal complaint of 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval this purpose must train new employees discrimination with your agency. See, e.g. 29 from the Special Counsel to discipline within 90 calendar days of the new CFR 1614. If you believe that you have been employees for, among other activities, employees’ appointment. the victim of unlawful discrimination on the engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in [FR Doc. E6–11541 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] basis of age, you must either contact an EEO the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or counselor as noted above or give notice of permits an agency to take unfounded BILLING CODE 6325–39–P intent to sue to the Equal Employment disciplinary action against a Federal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 employee or to violate the procedural rights calendar days of the alleged discriminatory of a Federal employee who has been accused DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION action. If you are alleging discrimination of discrimination based on marital status or political affiliation, Federal Aviation Administration you may file a written complaint with the Additional Information U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) (see For further information regarding the No 14 CFR Part 23 contact information below). In the alternative FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part (or in some cases, in addition), you may 724, as well as the appropriate offices within [Docket No. CE194, Special Condition 23– pursue a discrimination complaint by filing your agency (e.g., EEO/civil rights office, 134A–SC] a grievance through your agency’s human resources office or legal office). administrative or negotiated grievance Additional information regarding Federal Special Conditions; Cirrus Design procedures, if such procedures apply and are antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection Corporation SR22; Protection of available. and retaliation laws can be found at the Systems for High Intensity Radiated EEOC Web site—http://www.eeoc.gov and the Whistleblower Protection Laws Fields (HIRF) OSC Web site—http://www.osc.gov. A Federal employee with authority to take, Existing Rights Unchanged AGENCY: Federal Aviation direct others to take, recommend or approve Administration (FAA), DOT. any personnel action must not use that Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR authority to take or fail to take, or threaten Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, ACTION: Amended final special to take or fail to take, a personnel action expands or reduces any rights otherwise conditions; request for comments. against an employee or applicant because of available to any employee, former employee disclosure of information by that individual or applicant under the laws of the United SUMMARY: These amended special that is reasonably believed to evidence States, including the provisions of law conditions are issued to Cirrus Design violations of law, rule or regulation; gross specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an Minnesota 55811, for a Type Design abuse of authority; or a substantial and § 724.203 Training obligations. Change. This special condition amends specific danger to public health or safety, (a) Each agency must develop a special condition 23–134–SC, which unless disclosure of such information is written plan to train all of its employees was published February 4, 2003 (68FR specifically prohibited by law and such (including supervisors and managers) information is specifically required by 5538), for installation of an Electronic Executive order to be kept secret in the about the rights and remedies available Flight Instrument System (EFIS) interest of national defense or the conduct of under the Antidiscrimination Laws and manufactured by Avidyne Corporation foreign affairs. Whistleblower Protection Laws on the SR22. This amendment covers Retaliation against an employee or applicable to them. additional electronic equipment, such applicant for making a protected disclosure (b) Each agency shall have the as a digital autopilot and/or engine is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). If you discretion to develop the instructional related systems designed to perform believe that you have been the victim of materials and method of its training whistleblower retaliation, you may file a critical functions on the SR22 and other plan. Each agency training plan shall models listed on the same Type Data written complaint (Form OSC–11) with the describe: U.S. Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Sheet, A00009CH. Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC (1) The instructional materials and The airplanes will have novel and 20036–4505 or online through the OSC Web method of the training, unusual design features when compared site—http://www.osc.gov. (2) The training schedule, and to the state of technology envisaged in (3) The means of documenting the applicable airworthiness standards. Retaliation for Engaging in Protected completion of training. Activity (c) Each agency may contact EEOC The applicable regulations do not A Federal agency cannot retaliate against and/or OSC for information and/or contain adequate or appropriate an employee or applicant because that assistance regarding the agency’s airworthiness standards for the individual exercises his or her rights under training program. Neither agency, protection of these systems from the any of the Federal antidiscrimination or however, shall have authority under this effects of high intensity radiated fields whistleblower protection laws listed above. If regulation to review or approve an (HIRF). These special conditions you believe that you are the victim of contain the additional safety standards retaliation for engaging in protected activity, agency’s training plan. (d) Each agency is encouraged to that the Administrator considers you must follow, as appropriate, the necessary to establish a level of safety procedures described in the implement its training as soon as Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower possible, but required to complete the equivalent to the airworthiness Protection Laws sections or, if applicable, the initial training under this subpart for all standards applicable to these airplanes. administrative or negotiated grievance employees (including supervisors and DATES: The effective date of these procedures in order to pursue any legal managers) by December 17, 2006. special conditions is July 11, 2006. remedy. Thereafter, each agency must train all Comments must be received on or Disciplinary Actions employees on a training cycle of no before August 21, 2006. Under the existing laws, each agency longer than every 2 years. retains the right, where appropriate, to (e) After the initial training is ADDRESSES: Comments on these special discipline a Federal employee for conduct completed, each agency must train new conditions may be mailed in duplicate

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41100 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

to: Federal Aviation Administration, potentially vulnerable to HIRF external electronic systems that perform Regional Counsel, ACE–7, Attention: to the airplane. functions required for continued safe Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE194, flight and landing. Due to the use of Type Certification Basis Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, sensitive solid-state advanced Missouri 64106. All comments must be Under the provisions of 14 CFR part components in analog and digital marked: Docket No. CE194. Comments 21, § 21.101, Cirrus Design Corporation electronics circuits, these advanced may be inspected in the Rules Docket must show that affected airplane systems are readily responsive to the weekdays, except Federal holidays, models, as changed, continue to meet transient effects of induced electrical between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. the applicable provisions of the current and voltage caused by the HIRF. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wes regulations incorporated by reference on The HIRF can degrade electronic Ryan, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Type Data Sheet A00009CH, or the systems performance by damaging Office (ACE–110), Small Airplane applicable regulations in effect on the components or upsetting system Directorate, Aircraft Certification date of application for the change. The functions. regulations incorporated by reference in Service, Federal Aviation Furthermore, the HIRF environment Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, the type certificate are commonly referred to as the ‘‘original type has undergone a transformation that was Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone not foreseen when the current (816) 329–4113. certification basis.’’ In addition, the type certification basis of airplane models requirements were developed. Higher SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA that embody this modification will energy levels are radiated from has determined that notice and include § 23.1301 of Amendment 23–20; transmitters that are used for radar, opportunity for prior public comment §§ 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of radio, and television. Also, the number hereon are impracticable because these Amendment 23–49; and § 23.1322 of of transmitters has increased procedures have been subject to the Amendment 23–43; exemptions, if any; significantly. There is also uncertainty public comment process several times and the special conditions adopted by concerning the effectiveness of airframe in the past without substantive this rulemaking action. shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, comment. The FAA, therefore, finds that coupling to cockpit-installed equipment Discussion good cause exists for making these through the cockpit window apertures is special conditions effective upon If the Administrator finds that the undefined. issuance. applicable airworthiness standards do The combined effect of the not contain adequate or appropriate Comments Invited technological advances in airplane safety standards because of novel or design and the changing environment Interested persons are invited to unusual design features of an airplane, has resulted in an increased level of submit such written data, views, or special conditions are prescribed under arguments as they may desire. the provisions of § 21.16. vulnerability of electrical and electronic Communications should identify the Special conditions, as appropriate, as systems required for the continued safe regulatory docket or notice number and defined in § 11.19, are issued in flight and landing of the airplane. be submitted in duplicate to the address accordance with § 11.38 after public Effective measures against the effects of specified above. All communications notice and become part of the type exposure to HIRF must be provided by received on or before the closing date certification basis in accordance with the design and installation of these for comments will be considered by the § 21.101(b)(2) of Amendment 21–69. systems. The accepted maximum energy Administrator. The special conditions Special conditions are initially levels in which civilian airplane system may be changed in light of the applicable to the model for which they installations must be capable of comments received. All comments are issued. Should the applicant apply operating safely are based on surveys received will be available in the Rules for a supplemental type certificate to and analysis of existing radio frequency Docket for examination by interested modify any other model already emitters. These special conditions persons, both before and after the included on the same type certificate to require that the airplane be evaluated closing date for comments. A report incorporate the same novel or unusual under these energy levels for the summarizing each substantive public design feature, the special conditions protection of the electronic system and contact with FAA personnel concerning would also apply to the other model its associated wiring harness. These this rulemaking will be filed in the under the provisions of § 21.101. external threat levels, which are lower docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to than previous required values, are acknowledge receipt of their comments Novel or Unusual Design Features believed to represent the worst case to submitted in response to this notice Cirrus Design Corporation plans to which an airplane would be exposed in must include a self-addressed, stamped incorporate certain novel and unusual the operating environment. postcard on which the following design features into an airplane for These special conditions require statement is made: ‘‘Comments to which the airworthiness standards do qualification of systems that perform Docket No. CE194.’’ The postcard will not contain adequate or appropriate critical functions, as installed in aircraft, be date stamped and returned to the safety standards for protection from the to the defined HIRF environment in commenter. effects of HIRF. These features include paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed Background EFIS, which are susceptible to the HIRF value using laboratory tests, in environment, that were not envisaged paragraph 2, as follows: In February 2005, Cirrus Design by the existing regulations for this type Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, of airplane. (1) The applicant may demonstrate Minnesota 55811 made application to that the operation and operational the FAA for a change in Type Design for Protection of Systems From High capability of the installed electrical and the SR22 airplane model listed on Type Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) electronic systems that perform critical Data Sheet A00009CH. The proposed Recent advances in technology have functions are not adversely affected modification incorporates novel or given rise to the application in aircraft when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF unusual design features that are designs of advanced electrical and environment defined below:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41101

Field strength Applicability that performs critical functions must be Frequency (volts per meter) As discussed above, these special designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities Peak Average conditions are applicable to one modification to the airplane models of these systems to perform critical 10 kHz–100 kHz ...... 50 50 listed under the heading ‘‘Type functions, are not adversely affected 100 kHz–500 kHz ..... 50 50 Certification Basis.’’ Should Cirrus when the airplane is exposed to high 500 kHz–2 MHz ...... 50 50 Design Corporation apply at a later date intensity radiated electromagnetic fields 2 MHz–30 MHz ...... 100 100 for a supplemental type certificate to external to the airplane. 30 MHz–70 MHz ...... 50 50 modify any other model on the same 2. For the purpose of these special 70 MHz–100 MHz ..... 50 50 type certificate to incorporate the same conditions, the following definition 100 MHz–200 MHz ... 100 100 applies: Critical Functions: Functions 200 MHz–400 MHz ... 100 100 novel or unusual design feature, the 400 MHz–700 MHz ... 700 50 special conditions would apply to that whose failure would contribute to, or 700 MHz–1 GHz ...... 700 100 model as well under the provisions of cause, a failure condition that would 1 GHz–2 GHz ...... 2000 200 § 21.101. prevent the continued safe flight and 2 GHz–4 GHz ...... 3000 200 landing of the airplane. Conclusion 4 GHz–6 GHz ...... 3000 200 Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 11, 6 GHz–8 GHz ...... 1000 200 This action affects only certain novel 2006. 8 GHz–12 GHz ...... 3000 300 or unusual design features of one Steve W. Thompson, 12 GHz–18 GHz ...... 2000 200 modification to several models of 18 GHz–40 GHz ...... 600 200 Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, airplanes. It is not a rule of general Aircraft Certification Service. applicability and affects only the The field strengths are expressed in terms [FR Doc. E6–11483 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] of peak root-mean-square (rms) values. applicant who applied to the FAA for BILLING CODE 4910–13–P or, approval of these features on the (2) The applicant may demonstrate by airplane. The substance of these special a system test and analysis that the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION conditions has been subjected to the electrical and electronic systems that notice and comment period in several perform critical functions can withstand Federal Aviation Administration prior instances and has been derived a minimum threat of 100 volts per without substantive change from those meter, electrical field strength, from 10 14 CFR Part 23 previously issued. It is unlikely that kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to prior public comment would result in a [Docket No. CE239; Special Condition No. show compliance with the HIRF significant change from the substance 23–179–SC] requirements, no credit is given for contained herein. For this reason, and signal attenuation due to installation. Special Conditions: Societe de A preliminary hazard analysis must because a delay would significantly Motorisation Aeronautiques (SMA) be performed by the applicant, for affect the certification of some airplane Engines, Inc., Cessna Models 182Q approval by the FAA, to identify either models, the FAA has determined that and 182R; Diesel Cycle Engine Using electrical or electronic systems that prior public notice and comment are Turbine (Jet) Fuel perform critical functions. The term unnecessary and impracticable, and ‘‘critical’’ means those functions whose good cause exists for adopting these AGENCY: Federal Aviation failure would contribute to, or cause, a special conditions upon issuance. The Administration (FAA), DOT. failure condition that would prevent the FAA is requesting comments to allow ACTION: Final special conditions. continued safe flight and landing of the interested persons to submit views that SUMMARY: airplane. The systems identified by the may not have been submitted in These special conditions are hazard analysis that perform critical response to the prior opportunities for issued for the Cessna Models 182Q and functions are candidates for the comment described above. 182R airplanes with a Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques (SMA) application of HIRF requirements. A List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 system may perform both critical and Model SR305–230 aircraft diesel engine Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and (ADE). This airplane will have a novel non-critical functions. Primary symbols. electronic flight display systems, and or unusual design feature(s) associated their associated components, perform Citation with the installation of a diesel cycle critical functions such as attitude, engine utilizing turbine (jet) fuel. The The authority citation for these applicable airworthiness regulations do altitude, and airspeed indication. The special conditions is as follows: HIRF requirements apply only to critical not contain adequate or appropriate Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and functions. safety standards for installation of this 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR new technology engine. These special Compliance with HIRF requirements 11.38 and 11.19. may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, conditions contain the additional safety models, similarity with existing The Special Conditions standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level systems, or any combination of these. Accordingly, pursuant to the of safety equivalent to that established Service experience alone is not authority delegated to me by the by the existing airworthiness standards. acceptable since normal flight Administrator, the following special operations may not include an exposure conditions are issued as part of the type DATES: Effective Date: July 11, 2006. to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a certification basis for airplane models FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: system with similar design features for listed under the ‘‘Type Certification Peter L. Rouse, Federal Aviation redundancy as a means of protection Basis’’ heading modified by Cirrus Administration, Aircraft Certification against the effects of external HIRF is Design Corporation to add an EFIS. Service, Small Airplane Directorate, generally insufficient since all elements 1. Protection of Electrical and ACE–111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, of a redundant system are likely to be Electronic Systems from High Intensity Missouri, 816–329–4135, fax 816–329– exposed to the fields concurrently. Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system 4090.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41102 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • Flutter (Compliance with § 23.629, accordance with § 11.38, and become paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)). part of the type certification basis in Background • Powerplant—Installation accordance with § 21.101(b)(2). On March 19, 2004, SMA Engines, (Provisions similar to § 23.901(d)(1) for Special conditions are initially Inc., applied for a supplemental type turbine engines). • applicable to the model for which they certificate for the installation of an SMA Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel are issued. Should the applicant apply Model SR305–230 ADE, type system with water saturated fuel for a supplemental type certificate to certificated in the United States, type (Compliance with § 23.951 modify any other model included on the certificate number E00067EN, in the requirements). same type certificate to incorporate the • Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Cessna Models 182Q and 182R same novel or unusual design feature, system hot weather operation airplanes. The Cessna Models 182Q and the special conditions would also apply (Compliance with § 23.961 182R airplanes, approved under Type to the other model under the provisions requirements). Certificate No. 3A13, are four-place, • of § 21.101(a)(1). single engine airplanes. Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel tank filler connection (Compliance with In anticipation of the reintroduction Novel or Unusual Design Features § 23.973(f) requirements). of diesel engine technology into the • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel The Cessna Models 182Q and 182R small airplane fleet, the FAA issued tank outlet (Compliance with § 23.977 airplanes with the installation of an Policy Statement PS–ACE100–2002–004 requirements). SMA Model SR305–230 will incorporate on May 15, 2004, which identified areas • Equipment—General—Powerplant the following novel or unusual design of technological concern involving Instruments (Compliance with § 23.1305 features: introduction of new technology diesel requirements). The Cessna Models 182Q and 182R engines into small airplanes. For a more • Operating Limitations and airplanes with the installation of an detailed summary of the FAA’s Information—Powerplant limitations— SMA Model SR305–230 will incorporate development of diesel engine Fuel grade or designation (Compliance an aircraft diesel engine utilizing requirements, refer to this policy. with § 23.1521(d) requirements). turbine (jet) fuel. The general areas of concern involved • Markings And Placards— the power characteristics of the diesel Miscellaneous markings and placards— Discussion of Comments engines, the use of turbine fuel in an Fuel, oil, and coolant filler openings A notice of proposed special airplane class that has typically been (Compliance with § 23.1557(c)(1) conditions No. 23–06–01–SC for the powered by gasoline fueled engines, and requirements). Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes the vibration characteristics and failure • Powerplant—Fuel system—Fuel with a SMA Model SR305–230 ADE was modes of diesel engines. These concerns Freezing. published on February 17, 2006 (71 FR were identified after review of the • Powerplant Installation—Vibration 8543). No comments were received, and historical record of diesel engine used levels. the special conditions are adopted as in aircraft and a review of the 14 CFR • Powerplant Installation—One proposed. part 23 regulations, which identified cylinder inoperative. • specific regulatory areas that needed to Powerplant Installation—High Applicability be evaluated for applicability to diesel Energy Engine Fragments. Equivalent levels of safety for: As discussed above, these special engine installations. These concerns are • not considered universally applicable to Cockpit controls—23.777(d). conditions are applicable to the Cessna • Motion and effect of cockpit all types of possible diesel engines and Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with controls—23.779(b). an SMA Model SR305–230 ADE. Should diesel engine installations. However, • Ignition switches—23.1145. after review of the SMA installation, SMA apply at a later date for a The type certification basis includes supplemental type certificate to modify and applying the provisions of the exemptions, if any; equivalent level of diesel policy, the FAA proposed these any other model included on Type safety findings, if any; and the special Certificate No. 3A13 to incorporate the fuel system and engine related special conditions adopted by this rulemaking conditions. Other special conditions same novel or unusual design feature, action. the special conditions would apply to issued in a separate notice include If the Administrator finds that the special conditions for HIRF and that model as well under the provisions applicable airworthiness regulations of § 21.101(a)(1). application of § 23.1309 provisions to (i.e., part 23) do not contain adequate or the Full Authority Digital Engine appropriate safety standards for the Conclusion Control (FADEC). Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes This action affects only certain novel Type Certification Basis with the installation of an SMA Model or unusual design features on the SR305–230 ADE because of a novel or Under the provisions of § 21.101, Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes unusual design feature, special with a SMA Model SR305–230 ADE. It SMA Engines, Inc., must show that the conditions are prescribed under the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes is not a rule of general applicability, and provisions of § 21.16. it affects only the applicant who applied with the installation of an SMA Model In addition to the applicable to the FAA for approval of these features SR305–230 ADE meet the applicable airworthiness regulations and special on the airplane. provisions of 14 CFR part 23, as conditions, the Cessna Models 182Q amended by Amendments 23–1 through and 182R airplanes with the installation List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 23–51 and CAR 3 thereto. In addition, of an SMA Model SR305–230 ADE must the certification basis includes special comply with the fuel vent and exhaust Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and conditions and equivalent levels of emission requirements of 14 CFR part symbols. safety for the following: 34 and the noise certification Citation Special Conditions: requirements of 14 CFR part 36. • Engine torque (Provisions similar to Special conditions, as appropriate, as I The authority citation for these § 23.361, paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(3)). defined in 11.19, are issued in special conditions is as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41103

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and certificated airframe structure has been type fuels, the initial temperature must 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101 and 14 CFR approved for— be 110 °F, ¥0°, +5° or the maximum 11.38 and 11.19. (i) Unless such vibration outside air temperature for which The Special Conditions characteristics are shown to have no approval is requested, whichever is effect on safety or continued more critical. I Accordingly, pursuant to the authority airworthiness, or The fuel system must be in an delegated to me by the Administrator, (ii) Unless mitigated to an acceptable operational configuration that will yield the following special conditions are level by utilization of isolators, the most adverse, that is, conservative issued as part of the type certification dampers, clutches and similar results. basis for the Cessna Models 182Q and provisions, so that unacceptable To comply with this requirement, the 182R airplanes with an SMA Model vibration levels are not imposed on the applicant must use the turbine fuel SR305–230 ADE. previously certificated structure. requirements and must substantiate these by flight-testing, as described in 1. Engine Torque (Provisions Similar to 4. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel § 23.361, Paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(3)) Advisory Circular AC 23–8B, Flight Test System With Water Saturated Fuel Guide for Certification of Part 23 (a) For diesel engine installations, the (Compliance With § 23.951 Airplanes. engine mounts and supporting structure Requirements) 7. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Tank must be designed to withstand the Considering the fuel types used by Filler Connection (Compliance With following: diesel engines, the applicant must § 23.973(f) Requirements) (1) A limit engine torque load comply with the following: imposed by sudden engine stoppage due Each fuel system for a diesel engine In place of compliance with to malfunction or structural failure. must be capable of sustained operation § 23.973(e) and (f), the applicant must The effects of sudden engine stoppage throughout its flow and pressure range comply with the following: may alternately be mitigated to an with fuel initially saturated with water For airplanes that operate on turbine acceptable level by utilization of at 80 °F and having 0.75cc of free water or diesel type fuels, the inside diameter isolators, dampers, clutches and similar per gallon added and cooled to the most of the fuel filler opening must be no provisions, so that unacceptable load critical condition for icing likely to be smaller than 2.95 inches. levels are not imposed on the previously encountered in operation. 8. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Tank certificated structure. Methods of compliance that are Outlet (Compliance With § 23.977 (b) The limit engine torque obtained acceptable for turbine engine fuel Requirements) in CAR 3.195(a)(1) and (a)(2) or 14 CFR systems requirements of § 23.951(c) are 23.361(a)(1) and (a)(2) must be obtained also considered acceptable for this In place of compliance with § 23.977(a)(1) and (a)(2), the applicant by multiplying the mean torque by a requirement. factor of four in lieu of the factor of two will comply with the following: required by CAR 3.195(b) and 14 CFR 5. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel Flow There must be a fuel strainer for the 23.361(c)(3). (Compliance With § 23.955(c) fuel tank outlet or for the booster pump. Requirements) This strainer must, for diesel engine 2. Flutter—(Compliance With § 23.629 In lieu of 14 CFR 23.955(c), engine powered airplanes, prevent the passage (e)(1) and (e)(2) Requirements) fuel system must provide at least 100 of any object that could restrict fuel flow The flutter evaluation of the airplane percent of the fuel flow required by the or damage any fuel system component. done in accordance with 14 CFR 23.629 engine, or the fuel flow required to 9. Equipment—General—Powerplant must include— prevent engine damage, if that flow is Instruments (Compliance With (a) Whirl mode degree of freedom, greater than 100 percent. The fuel flow § 23.1305) which takes into account the stability of rate must be available to the engine In addition to compliance with the plane of rotation of the propeller under each intended operating § 23.1305, the applicant will comply and significant elastic, inertial, and condition and maneuver. The with the following: aerodynamic forces, and conditions may be simulated in a The following are required in addition (b) Propeller, engine, engine mount, suitable mockup. This flow must be to the powerplant instruments required and airplane structure stiffness, and shown in the most adverse fuel feed in § 23.1305: damping variations appropriate to the condition with respect to altitudes, (a) A fuel temperature indicator. particular configuration, and attitudes, and any other condition that (b) An outside air temperature (OAT) (c) Showing the airplane is free from is expected in operation. indicator. flutter with one cylinder inoperative. (c) An indicating means for the fuel 6. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel strainer or filter required by § 23.997 to 3. Powerplant—Installation (Provisions System Hot Weather Operation indicate the occurrence of Similar to § 23.901(d)(1) for Turbine (Compliance With § 23.961 Engines) contamination of the strainer or filter Requirements) before it reaches the capacity Considering the vibration In place of compliance with § 23.961, established in accordance with characteristics of diesel engines, the the applicant must comply with the § 23.997(d). applicant must comply with the following: Alternately, no indicator is required if following: Each fuel system must be free from the engine can operate normally for a (a) Each diesel engine installation vapor lock when using fuel at its critical specified period with the fuel strainer must be constructed and arranged to temperature, with respect to vapor exposed to the maximum fuel result in vibration characteristics that— formation, when operating the airplane contamination as specified in MIL– (1) Do not exceed those established in all critical operating and 5007D and provisions for replacing the during the type certification of the environmental conditions for which fuel filter at this specified period (or a engine; and approval is requested. For turbine fuel, shorter period) are included in the (2) Do not exceed vibration or for aircraft equipped with diesel maintenance schedule for the engine characteristics that a previously cycle engines that use turbine or diesel installation.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41104 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

10. Operating Limitations and operate. The minimum operating and physically separate from the engine Information—Powerplant Limitations— temperature will be determined by at high velocity (due to the high internal Fuel Grade or Designation (Compliance testing to establish the minimum pressures). This failure mode will be With § 23.1521 Requirements) operating temperature acceptable after considered possible in engine designs All engine parameters that have limits takeoff from the minimum takeoff with removable cylinders or other non- specified by the engine manufacturer for temperature. If low temperature limits integral block designs. The following is takeoff or continuous operation must be are not established by testing, then a required: (1) It must be shown by the design of investigated to ensure they remain minimum takeoff and operating fuel ° the engine that engine cylinders, other within those limits throughout the temperature limit of 5 F above the engine components or portions thereof expected flight and ground envelopes gelling temperature of Jet A will be (fragments) cannot be shed or blown off (e.g., maximum and minimum fuel imposed along with a display in the of the engine in the event of a temperatures, ambient temperatures, as cockpit of the fuel temperature. Fuel catastrophic engine failure; or applicable, etc.). This is in addition to temperature sensors will be located in the coldest part of the tank if applicable. (2) It must be shown that all possible the existing requirements specified by liberated engine parts or components do 14 CFR 23.1521(b) and (c). If any of 13. Powerplant Installation—Vibration not have adequate energy to penetrate those limits can be exceeded, there must Levels engine cowlings; or be continuous indication to the flight Vibration levels throughout the (3) Assuming infinite fragment crew of the status of that parameter with engine operating range must be energy, and analyzing the trajectory of appropriate limitation markings. evaluated and: the probable fragments and components, Instead of compliance with (1) Vibration levels imposed on the any hazard due to liberated engine parts § 23.1521(d), the applicant must comply airframe must be less than or equivalent or components will be minimized and with the following: to those of the gasoline engine; or the possibility of crew injury The minimum fuel designation (for (2) Any vibration level that is higher eliminated. Minimization must be diesel engines) must be established so than that imposed on the airframe by considered during initial design and not that it is not less than that required for the replaced gasoline engine must be presented as an analysis after design the operation of the engines within the considered in the modification and the completion. limitations in paragraphs (b) and (c) of effects on the technical areas covered by § 23.1521. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 11, the following paragraphs must be 2006. 11. Markings and Placards— investigated: 14 CFR 23.251; 23.613; Steve W. Thompson, 23.627; 23.629 (or CAR 3.159, as Miscellaneous Markings and Placards— Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Fuel, Oil, and Coolant Filler Openings applicable to various models); 23.572; Aircraft Certification Service. 23.573; 23.574 and 23.901. (Compliance With § 23.1557(c)(1) [FR Doc. E6–11474 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Requirements) Vibration levels imposed on the airframe can be mitigated to an BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Instead of compliance with acceptable level by utilization of § 23.1557(c)(1), the applicant must isolators, dampers, clutches, and similar DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION comply with the following: provisions, so that unacceptable Fuel filler openings must be marked vibration levels are not imposed on the Federal Aviation Administration at or near the filler cover with— previously certificated structure. For diesel engine-powered 14 CFR Part 23 airplanes— 14. Powerplant Installation—One (a) The words ‘‘Jet Fuel’’; and Cylinder Inoperative [Docket No. CE244, Special Condition 23– (b) The permissible fuel designations, It must be shown by test or analysis, 184A–SC] or references to the Airplane Flight or by a combination of methods, that the Special Condition; Avidyne Manual (AFM) for permissible fuel airframe can withstand the shaking or Corporation, Inc.; Various Airplane designations. vibratory forces imposed by the engine Models; Protection of Systems for (c) A warning placard or note that if a cylinder becomes inoperative. Diesel High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) states the following or similar: engines of conventional design typically ‘‘Warning—this airplane equipped have extremely high levels of vibration AGENCY: Federal Aviation with an aircraft diesel engine, service when a cylinder becomes inoperative. Administration (FAA), DOT. with approved fuels only.’’ No unsafe condition will exist in the ACTION: Amended final special The colors of this warning placard case of an inoperative cylinder before conditions; request for comments. should be black and white. the engine can be shut down. The SUMMARY: These amended special 12. Powerplant—Fuel System—Fuel- resistance of the airframe structure, conditions are issued to Avidyne Freezing propeller, and engine mount to shaking moment and vibration damage must be Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, If the fuel in the tanks cannot be investigated. It must be shown by test or Lincoln, MA 01773. This is an shown to flow suitably under all analysis, or by a combination of amendment to special condition 23– possible temperature conditions, then methods, that shaking and vibration 184–SC, which was published on May fuel temperature limitations are damage from the engine with an 23, 2006 (71 FR 29574), for installation required. These will be considered as inoperative cylinder will not cause a of an EFIS manufactured by Avidyne on part of the essential operating catastrophic airframe, propeller, or various models. The original issue left parameters for the aircraft and must be engine mount failure. off the Cirrus Design Corporation SR22, limitations. which was the first model to be certified A minimum takeoff temperature 15. Powerplant Installation—High under the STC. limitation will be determined by testing Energy Engine Fragments The airplanes listed under this multi- to establish the minimum cold-soaked It may be possible for diesel engine model approval will have novel and temperature at which the airplane can cylinders (or portions thereof) to fail unusual design features when compared

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41105

to the state of technology envisaged in Administration, 901 Locust, Room 301, be date stamped and returned to the the applicable airworthiness standards. Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone commenter. These novel and unusual design (816) 329–4123. Background features include the installation of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA Entegra II Avionics System, consisting In early 2006, the Avidyne has determined that notice and of: (2) Model 700–0003–( ) Integrated Corporation, 55 Old Bedford Road, opportunity for prior public comment Flight Displays (IFD), (2) Model 700– Lincoln, MA 01773, made an hereon are impracticable because the 00011–( ) Magnetometer/OAT sensors, application to the FAA for a new substance of these special conditions and (1) Model 700–00085–000 Supplemental Type Certificate for has been subject to the public comment Keyboard/Controller. These components airplane models listed under the type process in several prior instances with are all manufactured by Avidyne certification basis. The models are no substantive comments received. The Corporation, Inc. The applicable currently approved under the type FAA, therefore, finds that good cause regulations do not contain adequate or certification basis listed in the exists for making these special appropriate airworthiness standards for paragraph headed ‘‘Type Certification conditions effective upon issuance. the protection of these systems from the Basis.’’ The proposed modification effects of high intensity radiated fields Comments Invited incorporates a novel or unusual design (HIRF). These special conditions feature, such as a digital avionics contain the additional safety standards Interested persons are invited to system, that may be vulnerable to HIRF that the Administrator considers submit such written data, views, or external to the airplane. arguments, as they may desire. necessary to establish a level of safety Type Certification Basis equivalent to the airworthiness Communications should identify the standards applicable to these airplanes. regulatory docket or notice number and Under the provisions of 14 CFR part be submitted in duplicate to the address 21, § 21.101, Avidyne Corporation, must DATES: The effective date of these specified above. All communications show that affected airplane models, as special conditions is May 10, 2006. received on or before the closing date changed, continue to meet the Comments must be received on or for comments will be considered by the applicable provisions, of the regulations before August 21, 2006. Administrator. The special conditions incorporated by reference in Type ADDRESSES: Comments on these special may be changed in light of the Certificate Numbers listed below or the conditions may be mailed in duplicate comments received. All comments applicable regulations in effect on the to: Federal Aviation Administration, received will be available in the Rules date of application for the change. The Regional Counsel, ACE–7, Attention: Docket for examination by interested regulations incorporated by reference in Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. CE244, persons, both before and after the the type certificate are commonly Room 506, 901 Locust, Kansas City, closing date for comments. A report referred to as the original ‘‘type Missouri 64106. All comments must be summarizing each substantive public certification basis’’ and can be found in marked: Docket No. CE244. Comments contact with FAA personnel concerning the Type Certificate Numbers listed may be inspected in the Rules Docket this rulemaking will be filed in the below. In addition, the type certification weekdays, except Federal holidays, docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to basis of airplane models that embody between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. acknowledge receipt of their comments this modification will include FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wes submitted in response to this notice §§ 23.1301, 23.1309, 23.1311, and Ryan, Aerospace Engineer, Standards must include a self-addressed, stamped 23.1321, 23.1322 of Amendment 23–49; Office (ACE–110), Small Airplane postcard on which the following exemptions, if any; and the terms of this Directorate, Aircraft Certification statement is made: ‘‘Comments to special condition adopted by this Service, Federal Aviation Docket No. CE244.’’ The postcard will rulemaking action.

FINAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS [Approved model list—Part 23 Class I & II (AC 23.1309–1C]

Type certificate Certification basis Aircraft make Aircraft model(s) No. (see note 1)

Aerostar Aircraft Corporation PA–60–600 (Aerostar 600), PA–60–601 (Aerostar 601), A17WE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. PA–60–601P (Aerostar 601P), PA–60–602P (Aerostar 602P). Cessna Aircraft Company ..... 172R, 172S ...... 3A12 ...... 182S, 182T, T182T ...... 3A1314 CFR Part 23. 14 CFR Part 23. 206H, T206H ...... A4CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. T303 ...... A34CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. 310, 310A (USAF U–3A), 310B, 310C, 310D, 310E 3A10 ...... CAR 3. (USAF U–3B), 310F, 310G, 310H, 310I, 310J, 310J–1, 310K, 310L, 310N, 310P, E310H, E310J, T310P, 310Q, T310Q, 310R, T310R. 320, 320–1, 320A, 320B, 320C, 320D, 320E, 320F 340, 3A25 ...... CAR 3. 340A, 335, 340, 340A. 336 ...... A2CE ...... CAR 3. 337, 337A (USAF O2B), 337B, 337C, 337D, 337E, 337F, A6CE ...... CAR 3, 14 CFR Part 23. 337G, 337H, M337B (USAF O2A), P337H, T337B, T337C, T337D, T337E, T337F, T337G, T337H, T337H–SP. Cirrus Design Corporation .... SR20, SR22 ...... A00009CH ...... 14 CFR Part 23. Columbia Aircraft Manufac- LC40–550FG, LC42–550FG ...... A00003SE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. turing.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41106 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

FINAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS—Continued [Approved model list—Part 23 Class I & II (AC 23.1309–1C]

Type certificate Certification basis Aircraft make Aircraft model(s) No. (see note 1)

Commander Aircraft ...... 112, 114, 112TC, 112B, 112TCA, 114A, 114B, 114TC .... A12SO ...... CAR 3. de Havilland Inc ...... DHC–2 Mk. I, DHC–2 Mk. II, DHC–2 Mk. III ...... A–806 ...... CAR 3. Diamond Aircraft Industries .. DA 20–A1, DA20–C1 ...... TA4CH ...... 14 CFR Part 23. A40 ...... A47CE ...... 14 CFR Part 21, 14 CFR Part 23. A42 ...... A57CE ...... 14 CFR Part 21, 14 CFR Part 23. Maule Aerospace Tech- Bee Dee M–4, M–5–180C, MXT–7–160, M–4, M–5–200, 3A23 ...... CAR 3. nology, Inc. MX–7–180A, M–4C, M–5–210C, MXT–7–180, M–4S, M–5–210TC, MX–7–180B, M–4T, M–5–220C, MXT–7– 420, M–4–180C, M–5–235C, M–7–235B, M–4–180S, M–6–180, M–7–235A, M–4–180T, M–6–235, M–7– 235C M–4–210 M–7–235 MX–7–180C, M–4–210C, MX–7–235, M–7–260, M–4–210S MX–7–180 MT–7– 260, M–4–210T, MX–7–420, M–7–260C,M–4–220, MXT–7–180, M–7–420AC, M–4–220C, MT–7–235, MX–7–160C, M–4–220S, M–8–235, MX–7–180AC, M– 4–220T, MX–7–160. Mooney Aircraft Corp ...... M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, 2A3 ...... CAR 3. M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S. M22 ...... A6SW ...... CAR 3. Partenavia Costruzioni P 68, P 68B, P 68C, P 68C–TC, P 68 ‘‘OBSERVER’’, A31EU ...... 14 CFR Part 23. Aeronauticas S.p.A. AP68 TP series 300, P68TC ‘‘OBSERVER’’, AP68TP 600, P68 ‘‘OBSERVER 2’’. The New Piper Aircraft, Inc .. PA–28–160, PA–28–150, PA–28–180, PA–28S–160, PA–28S–180, PA–28–235, PA–28–140 2 PCLM, PA– 28–140 4 PCLM, PA–28R–180, PA–28R–200, PA– 28R–200, PA–28–180, PA–28–235, PA–28–151, PA– 28–181, PA–28–181, PA–28–161, PA–28–161, PA– 28–161, PA–28R–201, PA–28R–201T, PA–28–236, PA–28RT–201, PA–28RT–201, PA–28RT–201T, PA– 28–201T. A–32–260, PA–32–300, PA–32S–300, PA–32R–300, A3SO ...... CAR 3. PA–32RT–300, PA–32RT–300T, PA–32R–301, PA– 32R–301, PA–32R–301T, PA–32–301, PA–32–301T, PA–32R–301T. PA–30, PA–39, PA–40 ...... A1EA ...... CAR 3. PA–34–200, PA–34–200T, PA–34–220T, PA–34–220T, A7SO ...... CAR 3. PA–34–220T. PA–44–180, PA–44–180, PA–44–180T ...... A19SO ...... 14 CFR Part 23. PA–46–310P, PA–46–350P, PA–46–500TP ...... A25SO ...... 14 CFR Part 23. Raytheon Aircraft Company .. A36, B36TC, G36 ...... 3A15 ...... CAR 3. 58 and 58A ...... 3A16 ...... CAR 3. 58P and 58PA, 58TC and 58TCA ...... A23CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. REVO, Incorporated ...... Lake LA–4, LA–4A, LA–4P, Lake LA–4–200, Lake 250 ... 1A13 ...... CAR 3, 14 CFR Part 23. SOCATA—Groupe TB 20, TB 10, TB 21, TB9, TB 200 ...... A51EU ...... 14 CFR Part 23. AEROSPATIALE. Twin Commander ...... 500, 520, 560, 560–A ...... 6A1 ...... CAR 3.

FINAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS [Approved model list—Part 23 class III]

Type certificate Certification basis Aircraft make Aircraft model(s) No. (see note 1)

Aerostar Aircraft Corporation PA–60–700P (Aerostar 700P) ...... A17WE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. Cessna Aircraft Company ..... 208, 208A, 208B ...... A37CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. 401, 401A, 401B, 402, 402A, 402B, 402C, 411, 411A, A7CE ...... CAR 3. 414, 414A, 421, 421A, 421B, 421C, 425. 404, 406 ...... A25CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. 441 ...... A28CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. de Havilland Inc ...... (Twin Otter) DHC–6–1, DHC–6–100, DHC–6–200, DHC– A9EA ...... CAR 3. 6–300. Fairchild ...... SA26–T, SA26–AT, SA226–T, SA226–AT, SA226–T(B), A5SW ...... CAR 3. SA227–AT, SA227–TT. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, MU–2B, MU–2B–10, MU–2B–20, MU–2B–15, MU–2B– A2PC ...... CAR 3. Ltd. 30, MU–2B–35, MU–2B–25, MU–2B–36, MU–2B–26.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41107

FINAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS—Continued [Approved model list—Part 23 class III]

Type certificate Certification basis Aircraft make Aircraft model(s) No. (see note 1)

MU–2B–25, MU–2B–35, MU–2B–26, MU–2B–36, MU– A10SW ...... CAR 3. 2B–26A, MU–2B–36A, MU–2B–40, MU–2B–60. Partenavia Costruzioni ‘‘SPARTACUS’’, AP68TP 600 ‘‘VIATOR’’, VA300 ...... A31EU ...... 14 CFR Part 23. Aeronauticas S.p.A. Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A P–180 ...... A59EU ...... 14 CFR Part 23. Pilatus Aircraft Limited ...... PC–12, PC–12/45 ...... A78EU ...... 14 CFR Part 23. PC–6, PC–6–H1, PC–6–H2, PC–6/350, PC–6/350–H1, 7A15 ...... CAR 3. PC–6/350–H2, PC–6/A, PC–6/A–H1, PC–6/A–H2, PC– 6/B–H2, PC–6/B1–H2, PC–6/B2–H2, PC–6/B2–H4, PC–6/C–H2, PC–6/C1–H2. The New Piper Aircraft, Inc .. PA–31, PA–31–300, PA–31–325, PA–31–350 ...... A20SO ...... CAR 3. PA–31P, PA–31T, PA–31T1, PA–31T2, PA–31T3, PA– A8EA ...... CAR 3. 31P–350. PA–42, PA–42–720, PA–42–720R, PA–42–1000 ...... A23SO ...... 14 CFR Part 23. Raytheon Aircraft Company .. A100 (U–21F), A100A, A100C, B100 ...... A14CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. F90 ...... A31CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. E50 (L–23D, RL–23D), C50, F50, D50 (L–23E), G50, 5A4 ...... CAR 3. D50A H50, D50B, J50, D50C, D50E, D50E–5990. 60, A60, B60 ...... A12CE ...... 14 CFR Part 23. 65, 65–A90–1, A65, 65–A90–2, A65–8200, 65–A90–3, 3A20 ...... CAR3, 14 CFR Part 23. 65–80, 65–A90–4, 65–A80, 65–A80–8800, 65–B80, 65–88, 65–90, 65–A90, 70, B90, C90, C90A, E90, H90. SOCATA—Groupe TBM 700 ...... A60EU ...... 14 CFR Part 23. AEROSPATIALE. Twin Commander ...... 560–F, 681, 680, 690, 680E, 685, 680F, 690A, 720, 2A4 ...... CAR 3. 690B, 680FL, 690C, 680FL(P), 690D, 680T, 695, 680V, 695A, 680W, 695B. 500–A, 500–B, 500–U, 560–E, 500–S ...... 6A1 ...... CAR 3. 700 ...... A12SW ...... 14 CFR Part 23.

Note 1: The Certification Basis listing refers Special conditions are initially components in analog and digital to the Certification Basis listed on the Type applicable to the model for which they electronics circuits, these advanced Certificate Data Sheet for each model. The are issued. Should the applicant apply systems are readily responsive to the modified aircraft will be compliant with the for a supplemental type certificate to transient effects of induced electrical latest amendment of the regulations modify any other model already current and voltage caused by the HIRF. applicable to the modification. In particular, the revised Certification Basis will included on the same type certificate to The HIRF can degrade electronic incorporate §§ 23.1301, 23.1309, 23.1311, incorporate the same novel or unusual systems performance by damaging 23.1321, 23.1322, 23.1353 at amendment 49, design feature, the special conditions components or upsetting system and the terms of this Special Condition. Also, would also apply to the other model functions. each model will be added to the Approved under the provisions of Sec. 21.101. Furthermore, the HIRF environment Model List (AML) using a prototyping has undergone a transformation that was Novel or Unusual Design Features approach, where the model is only added to not foreseen when the current the Supplemental Type Certificate as Avidyne Corporation plans to requirements were developed. Higher installations are accomplished and evaluated incorporate certain novel and unusual energy levels are radiated from on each model. This combined special condition is being issued simply to avoid design features into an airplane for transmitters that are used for radar, having to re-issue a repeated Special which the airworthiness standards do radio, and television. Also, the number Condition document for each model listed on not contain adequate or appropriate of transmitters has increased this multi-model approval. safety standards for protection from the significantly. There is also uncertainty effects of HIRF. These features include concerning the effectiveness of airframe Discussion Electronic Flight Instrument Systems shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, (EFIS), which are susceptible to the coupling to cockpit-installed equipment If the Administrator finds that the HIRF environment, that were not through the cockpit window apertures is applicable airworthiness standards do envisaged by the existing regulations for undefined. not contain adequate or appropriate this type of airplane. The combined effect of the safety standards because of novel or technological advances in airplane Protection of Systems from High unusual design features of an airplane, design and the changing environment Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) special conditions are prescribed under has resulted in an increased level of the provisions of § 21.16. Recent advances in technology have vulnerability of electrical and electronic Special conditions, as appropriate, as given rise to the application in aircraft systems required for the continued safe defined in § 11.19, are issued in designs of advanced electrical and flight and landing of the airplane. accordance with § 11.38 after public electronic systems that perform Effective measures against the effects of notice and become part of the type functions required for continued safe exposure to HIRF must be provided by certification basis in accordance with flight and landing. Due to the use of the design and installation of these § 21.101 (b)(2) of Amendment 21–69. sensitive solid-state advanced systems. The accepted maximum energy

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41108 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

levels in which civilian airplane system failure would contribute to, or cause, a may not have been submitted in installations must be capable of failure condition that would prevent the response to the prior opportunities for operating safely are based on surveys continued safe flight and landing of the comment described above. and analysis of existing radio frequency airplane. The systems identified by the emitters. These special conditions hazard analysis that perform critical List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 require that the airplane be evaluated functions are candidates for the Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and application of HIRF requirements. A under these energy levels for the symbols. protection of the electronic system and system may perform both critical and its associated wiring harness. These non-critical functions. Primary Citation external threat levels, which are lower electronic flight display systems, and than previous required values, are their associated components, perform I The authority citation for these believed to represent the worst case to critical functions such as attitude, special conditions is as follows: which an airplane would be exposed in altitude, and airspeed indication. The the operating environment. HIRF requirements apply only to critical Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and These special conditions require functions. 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR qualification of systems that perform Compliance with HIRF requirements 11.38 and 11.19. critical functions, as installed in aircraft, may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, The Special Conditions to the defined HIRF environment in models, similarity with existing paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed systems, or any combination of these. I Accordingly, pursuant to the authority value using laboratory tests, in Service experience alone is not delegated to me by the Administrator, paragraph 2, as follows: acceptable since normal flight the following special conditions are (1) The applicant may demonstrate operations may not include an exposure issued as part of the type certification that the operation and operational to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a basis for airplane models listed under capability of the installed electrical and system with similar design features for the ‘‘Type Certification Basis’’ heading electronic systems that perform critical redundancy as a means of protection modified by Avidyne Corporation, to functions are not adversely affected against the effects of external HIRF is add an EFIS. when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF generally insufficient since all elements 1. Protection of Electrical and environment defined below: of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently. Electronic Systems from High Intensity Field strength Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system Applicability that performs critical functions must be Frequency (volts per meter) As discussed above, these special designed and installed to ensure that the Peak Average conditions are applicable to one operations, and operational capabilities modification to the airplane models 10 kHz–100 kHz ...... 50 50 of these systems to perform critical 100 kHz–500 kHz ..... 50 50 listed under the heading ‘‘Type functions, are not adversely affected 500 kHz–2 MHz ...... 50 50 Certification Basis.’’ Should Avidyne when the airplane is exposed to high 2 MHz–30 MHz ...... 100 100 Corporation, apply to extend this intensity radiated electromagnetic fields 30 MHz–70 MHz ...... 50 50 modification to include additional external to the airplane. 70 MHz–100 MHz ..... 50 50 airplane models, the special conditions 100 MHz–200 MHz ... 100 100 would extend to these models as well 2. For the purpose of these special 200 MHz–400 MHz ... 100 100 under the provisions of § 21.101. conditions, the following definition 400 MHz–700 MHz ... 700 50 applies: Critical Functions: Functions 700 MHz–1 GHz ...... 700 100 Conclusion whose failure would contribute to, or 1 GHz–2 GHz ...... 2000 200 This action affects only certain novel cause, a failure condition that would 2 GHz–4 GHz ...... 3000 200 or unusual design features of one 4 GHz–6 GHz ...... 3000 200 prevent the continued safe flight and 6 GHz–8 GHz ...... 1000 200 modification to several models of landing of the airplane. airplanes. It is not a rule of general 8 GHz–12 GHz ...... 3000 300 Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 14, applicability and affects only the 12 GHz–18 GHz ...... 2000 200 2006. 18 GHz–40 GHz ...... 600 200 applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the Patrick R. Mullen, The field strengths are expressed in terms Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, of peak root-mean-square (rms) values. airplane. The substance of these special Aircraft Certification Service. or, conditions has been subjected to the [FR Doc. E6–11562 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] (2) The applicant may demonstrate by notice and comment period in several BILLING CODE 4910–13–P a system test and analysis that the prior instances and has been derived electrical and electronic systems that without substantive change from those perform critical functions can withstand previously issued. It is unlikely that a minimum threat of 100 volts per prior public comment would result in a meter, electrical field strength, from 10 significant change from the substance kHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to contained herein. For this reason, and show compliance with the HIRF because a delay would significantly requirements, no credit is given for affect the certification of some airplane signal attenuation due to installation. models, the FAA has determined that A preliminary hazard analysis must prior public notice and comment are be performed by the applicant, for unnecessary and impracticable, and approval by the FAA, to identify either good cause exists for adopting these electrical or electronic systems that special conditions upon issuance. The perform critical functions. The term FAA is requesting comments to allow ‘‘critical’’ refers to functions, whose interested persons to submit views that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41109

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Service Bulletin A300–53–6128, supplemental NPRM proposed to excluding Appendix 01, dated March 5, continue to require an inspection for Federal Aviation Administration 2001. cracks of the lower outboard flange of On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 867, gantry No. 4 in the main landing gear 14 CFR Part 39 January 7, 2004), the Director of the (MLG) bay area, and repair if necessary. [Docket No. FAA–2006–23690; Directorate Federal Register approved the That supplemental NPRM also proposed Identifier 2004–NM–133–AD; Amendment incorporation by reference of Airbus All to continue to require repetitive 39–14684; AD 2006–15–04] Operators Telex A300–53A0371, inspections of the gantry lower flanges, Revision 01, dated September 10, 2003; and repair if necessary. In addition, that RIN 2120–AA64 and Airbus All Operators Telex A300– supplemental NPRM proposed to 53A6145, Revision 01, dated September require new repetitive inspections for Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 10, 2003. cracks in the lower flange of certain A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes; and On July 30, 1998 (63 FR 34589, June gantries, and repair if necessary, which Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4– 25, 1998), the Director of the Federal ends the existing inspection 600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4– Register approved the incorporation by requirements. That supplemental NPRM 605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively reference of Airbus All Operators Telex also proposed optional terminating Called A300–600 Series Airplanes) (AOT) 53–11, dated October 13, 1997. actions for the new repetitive AGENCY: Federal Aviation ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD inspections. That supplemental also Administration (FAA), Department of docket on the Internet at http:// revised the original NPRM by including Transportation (DOT). dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket additional airplanes that were excluded ACTION: Final rule. Management Facility, U.S. Department from the applicability. of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street Comments SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding two SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, existing airworthiness directives (AD) Washington, DC. We provided the public the that apply to certain Airbus Model A300 Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice opportunity to participate in the B2, A300 B4, and A300–600 series Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, development of this AD. We have airplanes. One AD currently requires an for service information identified in this considered the comment that has been inspection for cracks of the lower AD. received on the supplemental NPRM. outboard flange of gantry No. 4 in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Request To Refer to Latest Service main landing gear (MLG) bay area, and Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, Bulletin repair if necessary. The other AD International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Airbus states that it has issued Service currently requires, among other actions, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Bulletins A300–53–0360, Revision 01, repetitive inspections of the gantry Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington dated May 31, 2006; and A300–53– lower flanges, and repair if necessary. 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1622; 6132, Revision 01, dated June 7, 2006; This new AD requires new repetitive fax (425) 227–1149. whose original issues are listed in inspections for cracks in the lower SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: paragraph (m)(2) of the supplemental flange of certain gantries, and repair if NPRM. Examining the Docket necessary, which ends the existing We infer that Airbus is requesting that inspection requirements. This new AD You may examine the airworthiness Revision 01 of Service Bulletins A300– also provides for optional terminating directive (AD) docket on the Internet at 53–0360 and A300–53–6132 be referred actions for the new repetitive http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the to in paragraph (m)(2) of the AD. We inspections. This AD results from a Docket Management Facility office agree. We have reviewed Revision 01 of report of a large fatigue crack along the between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday both service bulletins. Revision 01 of outboard flange of beam No. 4 and a through Friday, except Federal holidays. both service bulletins revises three subsequent determination that existing The Docket Management Facility office illustrations. The reinforcement inspections are inadequate. We are (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on procedures in Revision 01 of both issuing this AD to detect and correct the plaza level of the Nassif Building at service bulletins are identical to that in fatigue cracks in the lower flanges of the street address stated in the the original issues of the service gantries 1 through 5 inclusive in the ADDRESSES section. bulletins. No additional work is MLG bay area, which could result in Discussion required for airplanes modified in reduced structural integrity of the accordance with the original issues of fuselage, and consequent rapid The FAA issued a supplemental the service bulletins. Therefore, we have decompression of the airplane. notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) revised paragraph (m)(2) of this AD to DATES: This AD becomes effective to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an refer to Revision 01 of both service August 24, 2006. AD that supersedes AD 2003–26–10, bulletins and added a new paragraph (p) The Director of the Federal Register amendment 39–13408 (69 FR 867, to the AD (subsequent paragraphs have approved the incorporation by reference January 7, 2004), and AD 2004–18–13, been redesignated) to give credit for of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53– amendment 39–13792 (69 FR 55329, accomplishing the original issues of 0379, Revision 01, excluding Appendix dated September 14, 2004). The existing both service bulletins. 01, dated October 4, 2005; and Airbus ADs apply to certain Airbus Model Service Bulletin A300–53–6152, A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes, Explanation of Change Made to the Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, and Model A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and Supplemental NPRM dated October 4, 2005; listed in the AD F4–600R series airplanes, and Model Paragraphs (g), (i)(4), and (n) of the as of August 24, 2006. C4–605R Variant F airplanes supplemental NPRM specify making On October 19, 2004 (69 FR 55329, (collectively called A300–600 series repairs using a method approved by September 14, 2004), the Director of the airplanes). That supplemental NPRM either the FAA or the Direction Ge´ne´rale Federal Register approved the was published in the Federal Register de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its incorporation by reference of Airbus on May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28615). That delegated agent). The European

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41110 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has Conclusion on any operator nor increase the scope assumed responsibility for the airplane of the AD. We have carefully reviewed the modes that would be subject to this AD. Costs of Compliance Therefore, we have revised those available data, including the comment paragraphs of this AD to specify making that has been received, and determined This AD will affect about 165 repairs using a method approved by that air safety and the public interest airplanes of U.S. registry. The following either the FAA, the DGAC (or its require adopting the AD with the table provides the estimated costs for delegated agent), or the EASA (or its changes described previously. We have U.S. operators to comply with this AD. delegated agent). determined that these changes will Not all actions must be completed on all neither increase the economic burden airplanes.

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REQUIRED ACTIONS

Number of Action Work hours Average labor Parts Cost per airplane U.S.-registered Fleet cost rate per hour airplanes

One-time inspec- 1 $80 None...... $80 ...... 23 $1,840. tion (required by AD 2003–26–10). One-time inspec- 4 80 None ...... $320 ...... 43 $13,760. tion (required by AD 2004–18–13). Repetitive inspec- 12 80 None ...... $960, per inspec- 78 $74,880, per inspection cycle. tions (required by tion cycle. AD 2004–18–13). Repetitive inspec- 16 80 None ...... $1,280, per inspec- 78 $99,840, per inspection cycle. tions (new pro- tion cycle. posed actions).

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR OPTIONAL ACTIONS

Number of Average U.S.-reg- Optional action Work hours labor rate Parts Cost per airplane istered air- per hour planes

Reinforcement specified in 807 ...... $80 Between $87,100 and Between $151,660 and 23 Airbus Service Bulletin $121,560 depending on $186,120 depending on A300–53–0380, dated kit purchased. airplane configuration. August 5, 2005. Reinforcement specified in 807 ...... 80 Between $82,460 and Between $147,020 and 120 Airbus Service Bulletin $87,070 depending on $151,630 depending on A300–53–6153, dated kit purchased. airplane configuration. August 24, 2005. Reinforcement specified in Between 24 and 128 de- 80 Between $250 and $1,000 Between $2,170 and 23 Airbus Service Bulletin pending on airplane con- depending on kit pur- $11,240 depending on A300–53–0360, Revi- figuration. chased. airplane configuration. sion 01, dated May 31, 2002. Reinforcement specified in 109 ...... 80 Between $260 and $950 Between $8,980 and 120 Airbus Service Bulletin depending on kit pur- $9,670 depending on A300–53–6132, Revi- chased. airplane configuration. sion 01, dated June 7, 2006.

Authority for This Rulemaking air commerce by prescribing regulations the States, on the relationship between Title 49 of the United States Code for practices, methods, and procedures the national government and the States, specifies the FAA’s authority to issue the Administrator finds necessary for or on the distribution of power and rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, safety in air commerce. This regulation responsibilities among the various section 106, describes the authority of is within the scope of that authority levels of government. the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, because it addresses an unsafe condition For the reasons discussed above, I Aviation Programs, describes in more that is likely to exist or develop on certify that this AD: detail the scope of the Agency’s products identified in this rulemaking (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory authority. action. action’’ under Executive Order 12866; We are issuing this rulemaking under Regulatory Findings (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the authority described in subtitle VII, DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures part A, subpart III, section 44701, We have determined that this AD will (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that not have federalism implications under (3) Will not have a significant section, Congress charges the FAA with Executive Order 13132. This AD will economic impact, positive or negative, promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in not have a substantial direct effect on on a substantial number of small entities

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41111

under the criteria of the Regulatory 5 inclusive in the main landing gear (MLG) (1) If any cracking is detected, prior to Flexibility Act. bay area, which could result in reduced further flight, repair in accordance with the We prepared a regulatory evaluation structural integrity of the fuselage, and AOT. of the estimated costs to comply with consequent rapid decompression of the (2) If no cracking is detected, no further action is required by this paragraph. this AD and placed it in the AD docket. airplane. See the ADDRESSES section for a location Compliance Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions to examine the regulatory evaluation. (e) You are responsible for having the (i) For Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4– 605R, B4–620, B4–622R, C4–605R Variant F List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the airplanes, and F4–605R airplanes, on which Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation actions have already been done. Airbus Modification 12169 has not been done safety, Incorporation by reference, in production: Perform the requirements of Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003– Safety. paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of 26–10 this AD, in accordance with Airbus Service Adoption of the Amendment One-Time Inspection Bulletin A300–53–6128, dated March 5, 2001. I Accordingly, under the authority (f) For airplanes on which Airbus (1) At the later of the times specified in delegated to me by the Administrator, Modification 10147 has not been done: At the paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as later of the times specified in paragraphs perform initial ultrasonic inspections or follows: (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Do a one-time high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) detailed inspection for cracking of the lower inspections for cracks of the lower flanges of PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS outboard flange of gantry No. 4 in the MLG gantries 3, 4, and 5 between fuselage frames DIRECTIVES bay area per paragraph 4.2.1 of Airbus All FR47 and FR54, in accordance with the Operators Telex (AOT) A300–53A0371, Accomplishment Instructions, including the I 1. The authority citation for part 39 Revision 01 (for Model A300 B2 and B4 Synoptic Chart contained in Figure 2, sheets continues to read as follows: series airplanes); or AOT A300–53A6145, 1 through 5 inclusive, of the service bulletin. Revision 01 (for Model A300–600 series (i) In accordance with the thresholds Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. airplanes); both dated September 10, 2003; as specified in the Synoptic Chart contained in applicable. Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 inclusive, of the § 39.13 [Amended] (1) Before the accumulation of 8,000 total service bulletin; or I 2. The Federal Aviation flight cycles since the date of issuance of the (ii) Within 200 flight cycles after October Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 original Airworthiness Certificate or the date 19, 2004 (the effective date AD 2004–18–13). by removing amendments 39–13408 (69 of issuance of the Export Certificate of (2) Perform repetitive ultrasonic FR 867, January 7, 2004) and 39–13792 Airworthiness, whichever is first. inspections or high-frequency eddy current inspections for cracks of the lower flanges of (69 FR 55329, September 14, 2004, and (2) Within 30 days after January 22, 2004 (the effective date AD 2003–26–10). gantries 3, 4, and 5 between fuselage frames by adding the following new FR47 and FR54, in accordance with the airworthiness directive (AD): Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An thresholds and Accomplishment Instructions, including the Synoptic Chart 2006–15–04 Airbus: Amendment 39–14684. intensive visual examination of a specific contained in Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 Docket No. FAA–2006–23690; structural area, system, installation, or inclusive, of the service bulletin. Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–133–AD. assembly to detect damage, failure, or (3) Perform repairs and reinforcements, in irregularity. Available lighting is normally Effective Date accordance with the thresholds and the supplemented with a direct source of good Accomplishment Instructions, including the (a) This AD becomes effective August 24, lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by 2006. Synoptic Chart contained in Figure 2, sheets the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, 1 through 5 inclusive, of the service bulletin, (b) This AD supersedes ADs 2003–26–10 magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface and 2004–18–13. except as specified in paragraph (i)(4) of this cleaning and elaborate access procedures AD. Applicability may be required.’’ (4) If a new crack is found during any (c) This AD applies to Airbus airplanes Repair action required by paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2) or identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated (i)(3) of this AD and the Synoptic Chart in any category. (g) Repair any cracking found during the contained in Figure 2, sheets 1 through 5 inspection required by paragraph (f) of this inclusive, of the service bulletin specifies to AD before further flight, per a method TABLE 1.—APPLICABILITY contact Airbus for appropriate action: Prior to approved by either the Manager, further flight, repair per a method approved International Branch, ANM–116, Transport by the Manager, International Branch, ANM– Affected Airbus Airplanes Airplane Directorate, FAA; the Direction 116; the DGAC (or its delegated agent); or the (1) All Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K–3C, Ge´ne´rale de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or and B2–203 airplanes. delegated agent); or the European Aviation its delegate agent). (2) All Model A300 B4–2C, B4–103, and B4– Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegate agent). 203 airplanes. Credit for Inspections Accomplished in (3) All Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4– Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004– Accordance With AOT 18–13 620, and B4–622 airplanes. (j) Any inspection accomplished before (4) All Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R One-Time Inspection and Corrective Action October 19, 2004, in accordance with Airbus airplanes. (h) For Model A300 B2–1A, B2–1C, B2K– AOT 53–11, dated October 13, 1997, is (5) All Model A300 F4–605R and F4–622R 3C, and B2–203 airplanes, and Model A300 acceptable for compliance with the airplanes. corresponding inspection specified in (6) All Model A300 C4–605R Variant F air- B4–2C, B4–103, and B4–203 airplanes, on which Airbus Modification 3474 has been paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, for that planes. inspection area only. Operators must do the done: Prior to the accumulation of 16,300 applicable inspections in paragraph (i)(1) of total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles this AD for the remaining inspection areas. Unsafe Condition after July 30, 1998 (the effective date of AD (d) This AD results from a report of a large 98–13–37), whichever occurs later, perform a New Requirements of This AD fatigue crack along the outboard flange of one-time ultrasonic inspection for cracking of beam No. 4. We are issuing this AD to detect the gantry lower flanges in the MLG bay area, Repetitive Inspections and correct fatigue cracks in the lower in accordance with Airbus AOT 53–11, dated (k) At the later of the applicable times flanges of the left and right gantries 1 through October 13, 1997. specified in the ‘‘Threshold (FC)’’ and ‘‘Grace

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41112 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Period’’ columns of Tables 1 and 2 in right gantries 1 through 5 inclusive between of Tables 1 and 2 in paragraph 1.E of the paragraph 1.E of the applicable service FR47 and FR54, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this bulletin in Table 2 of this AD: Do an Accomplishment Instructions of the AD. Accomplishment of the initial inspection ultrasonic inspection or HFEC inspection, applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this ends the inspections required by paragraphs including rework of the pressure diaphragm, AD. Repeat the inspection at the applicable (f), (h), and (i) of this AD. for cracks in the lower flanges of the left and times specified in the ‘‘Interval (FC)’’ column

TABLE 2.—SERVICE BULLETINS

Airbus Service Bulletin— For airplanes identified in—

(1) A300–53–0379, Revision 01, dated October 4, 2005 ...... Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD inclusive. (2) A300–53–6152, Revision 01, dated October 4, 2005 ...... Paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this AD inclusive.

Corrective Action Accomplishment Instructions of the Optional Terminating Actions (l) If any crack is detected during any applicable service bulletin in Table 2 of this (m) Accomplishment of the actions ultrasonic or HFEC inspection required by AD, except as provided by paragraph (n) of specified in Table 3 of this AD ends the paragraph (k) of this AD, before further flight, this AD. repetitive inspections required by paragraph repair the crack in accordance with the (k) of this AD.

TABLE 3.—OPTIONAL TERMIANTING ACTIONS

By doing all the actions in accord- Before or at the same time with— Reinforce— ance with the Accomplishment In- For airplanes identified in— structions of—

(1) The actions required by para- The flanges of the left and right Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53– Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of graph (k) of this AD and the ac- portals 1 through 5 inclusive 0380, dated August 5, 2005, this AD inclusive. tion specified in paragraph between FR47 and FR54 of the except as provided by para- (m)(2) of this AD. landing gear, including a rotat- graph (n) of this AD. ing probe inspection for cracks of holes and repair if necessary. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53– Paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) 6153, dated August 24, 2005, of this AD inclusive. except as provided by para- graph (n) of this AD. (2) The actions required by para- Portals 3, 4, and 5 of the plates/ Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53– Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of graph (k) of this AD. skin. 0360, Revision 01, dated May this AD inclusive. 31, 2006, except as provided by paragraph (n) of this AD. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53– Paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) 6132, Revision 01, dated June of this AD inclusive. 7, 2006, except as provided by paragraph (n) of this AD.

Repair of Certain Cracks compliance with the corresponding Material Incorporated by Reference (n) Where the applicable service bulletin requirements of paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. (t) You must use the applicable service recommends contacting Airbus for No Inspection Report bulletins identified in Table 4 of this AD to appropriate action: Before further flight, perform the actions that are required by this (q) Although the service bulletins in this repair the crack in accordance with a method AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. AD specify to submit certain information to approved by the Manager, International (1) The Director of the Federal Register the manufacturer, this AD does not include Branch, ANM–116; the DGAC (or its approved the incorporation by reference of that requirement. delegated agent); or the European Aviation the documents in Table 5 of this AD in Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegate agent). Alternative Methods of Compliance accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR (AMOCs) part 51. Credit for Original Service Bulletins (2) On October 19, 2004 (69 FR 55329, (r)(1) The Manager, International Branch, (o) Accomplishing the inspections and September 14, 2004), the Director of the ANM–116, has the authority to approve Federal Register approved the incorporation repair before the effective date of this AD in AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin by reference of Airbus Service Bulletin accordance with the procedures found in 14 A300–53–6128, excluding Appendix 01, A300–53–0379, dated May 9, 2005; or Airbus CFR 39.19. dated March 5, 2001. Service Bulletin A300–53–6152, dated May (2) Before using any AMOC approved in (3) On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 867, 9, 2005; as applicable; is acceptable for accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to January 7, 2004), the Director of the Federal compliance with the corresponding which the AMOC applies, notify the Register approved the incorporation by requirements of paragraphs (k) and (l) of this appropriate principal inspector in the FAA reference of Airbus All Operators Telex AD. Flight Standards Certificate Holding District A300–53A0371, Revision 01, dated (p) Accomplishing the reinforcement Office. September 10, 2003; and Airbus All before the effective date of this AD in Operators Telex A300–53A6145, Revision 01, accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin Related Information dated September 10, 2003. A300–53–0360, dated May 3, 2002; and (s) French airworthiness directive F–2005– (4) On July 30, 1998 (63 FR 34589, June 25, Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6132, 091 R1, issued September 28, 2005, also 1998), the Director of the Federal Register dated February 5, 2002; is acceptable for addresses the subject of this AD. approved the incorporation by reference of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41113

Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) 53–11, Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, the availability of this material at the NARA, dated October 13, 1997. 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL–401, call (202) 741–6030, or go to http:// (5) Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the www.archives.gov/federal_register/ Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the code_of_federal_regulations/ copy of this service information. You may National Archives and Records ibr_locations.html. review copies at the Docket Management Administration (NARA). For information on

TABLE 4.—ALL MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Revision Service Bulletin level Date

Airbus All Operators Telex A300–53A0371 ...... 01 ...... September 10, 2003. Airbus All Operators Telex A300–53A6145 ...... 01 ...... September 10, 2003. Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) 53–11 ...... Original ...... October 13, 1997. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0379, excluding Appendix 01 ...... 01 ...... October 4, 2005. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6128, excluding Appendix 01 ...... Original ...... March 5, 2001. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6152, excluding Appendix 01 ...... 01 ...... October 4, 2005.

TABLE 5.—NEW MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Revision Service Bulletin level Date

Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–0379, excluding Appendix 01 ...... 01 ...... October 4, 2005. Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–6152, excluding Appendix 01 ...... 01 ...... October 4, 2005.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, to prevent contamination of the fueling The Docket Management Facility office 2006. float switch of the auxiliary fuel tank by (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on Ali Bahrami, moisture or fuel, and chafing of the float the plaza level of the Nassif Building at Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, switch wiring against the float switch the street address stated in the Aircraft Certification Service. conduit in the fuel tank, which could ADDRESSES section. [FR Doc. E6–11412 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] present an ignition source inside the Discussion BILLING CODE 4910–13–P fuel tank that could cause a fire or explosion. The FAA issued a notice of proposed DATES: This AD becomes effective rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION August 24, 2006. part 39 to include an AD that would Federal Aviation Administration The Director of the Federal Register apply to certain Boeing Model 737–200, approved the incorporation by reference –300, and –400 series airplanes. That 14 CFR Part 39 of a certain publication listed in the AD NPRM was published in the Federal as of August 24, 2006. Register on March 31, 2005 (70 FR [Docket No. FAA–2005–20731; Directorate ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 16445). That NPRM proposed to require Identifier 2004–NM–260–AD; Amendment replacing the existing fueling float 39–14685; AD 2006–15–05] docket on the Internet at http:// dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket switch in the auxiliary fuel tank with a RIN 2120–AA64 Management Facility, U.S. Department new, improved fueling float switch, of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, installing a new liner system inside the Airworthiness Directives; Boeing SW., Nassif Building, room PL–401, float switch conduit, and performing Model 737–200, –300, and –400 Series Washington, DC. related investigative and other specified Airplanes Contact Boeing Commercial actions. Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, AGENCY: Federal Aviation New Relevant Service Information Administration (FAA), Department of Washington 98124–2207, for service Transportation (DOT). information identified in this AD. We have reviewed Boeing Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Final rule. Bulletin 737–28A1192, Revision 2, Sherry Vevea, Aerospace Engineer, dated April 27, 2006. (The NPRM refers SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, to Boeing Service Bulletin 737– airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 28A1192, Revision 1, dated August 21, Boeing Model 737–200, –300, and –400 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 2003, as the appropriate source of series airplanes. This AD requires Washington 98055–4056; telephone service information for the proposed replacing the existing fueling float (425) 917–6514; fax (425) 917–6590. actions.) Revision 2 adds a new Part B, switch in the auxiliary fuel tank with a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: which describes procedures for adding new, improved fueling float switch, environmental protection to the splice installing a new liner system inside the Examining the Docket and conduit. We have revised paragraph float switch conduit, and performing You may examine the airworthiness (f) of this AD to refer to Revision 2 as related investigative and other specified directive (AD) docket on the Internet at the appropriate source of service actions. This AD results from reports of http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the information for the actions required by chafing of the direct-current-powered Docket Management Facility office that paragraph. Also, we have revised float switch wiring insulation in the between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit center fuel tank. We are issuing this AD through Friday, except Federal holidays. for actions previously accomplished in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41114 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

accordance with Revision 1 of the commenter states that this loophole number. The commenter states that service bulletin. could create a safety issue by allowing similar identification sleeves are used defective parts to remain in service. for the wiring installation for the Comments We concur with the MARPA’s general isolated fuel quantity transmitter on We provided the public the comment that, if we know that an Model 737 airplanes. opportunity to participate in the unsafe condition also exists in PMA We agree with the commenter’s development of this AD. We have parts, the AD should address those intent. But we do not agree that any considered the comments received. parts, as well as the OEM parts. change is necessary. The design of the However, we find that we may have Support for the Proposed AD float switch, conduit, liner, and wiring caused confusion for the commenter system will be listed as a critical design Two commenters, Boeing and the with the typographical error addressed configuration control limitation National Transportation Safety Board previously under ‘‘Request to Correct (CDCCL) for the fuel system on Model (NTSB), support the proposed AD. Subject Part Number (P/N).’’ The 737 series airplanes. This will ensure Request to Correct Subject Part Number typographical error appears to have that operators do not modify the fuel (P/N) caused the commenter to think that system without appropriate design there are two float switches of similar review. Boeing states that it will also Continental Airlines (Continental) design—one produced by the OEM ensure that maintenance instructions notes that the P/N specified in having P/N 8300–146, and the one will require that the conduit liner be paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is produced by Ametek Aerospace having replaced with a new liner whenever the different than the P/N specified in P/N F8300–146. This is not the case. We wiring is removed from the float switch paragraph (j) of AD 2004–15–04, are aware of only one float switch of this conduit for any reason. amendment 39–13738 (69 FR 44580, design, and this is the float switch July 27, 2004). (The NPRM explains that having P/N F8300–146 produced by Request To Revise Statement Regarding AD 2004–15–04 requires actions on the Ametek Aerospace. Thus, the part to Parts fueling float switches in the center and which the commenter refers is already Continental requests that note (a) be wing fuel tanks which are similar to the subject to the requirements of this AD. removed from Section 2.C., ‘‘Parts actions proposed for the auxiliary fuel However, the commenter’s remarks Necessary for Each Airplane,’’ of the tanks.) Similarly, BMI submits a single are timely in that the Transport service bulletin. The commenter page from Boeing Service Bulletin 737– Airplane Directorate currently is in the specifically objects to the instruction in 28A1192, Revision 1, marked to indicate process of reviewing this issue as it note (a), ‘‘Keep the existing part if there that the float switch P/N is F8300–146. applies to transport category airplanes. are other uses for it.’’ We infer that Continental and BMI are We acknowledge that there may be other We infer that the commenter is asking us to revise paragraph (g) of the ways of addressing this issue to ensure concerned that an existing float switch proposed AD to correct the float switch that unsafe PMA parts are identified and removed from the auxiliary fuel tank P/N. We agree. We made a addressed. Once we have thoroughly could be used again. We do not agree typographical error in the P/N in examined all aspects of this issue, that any change is necessary. Note (b) of paragraph (g) of the NPRM. There is no including input from industry, and have the same section states, ‘‘You cannot use float switch that has P/N 8300–146. We made a final determination, we will the existing part to replace the new or have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to consider whether our policy regarding changed part.’’ This addresses the correct the P/N to F8300–146. addressing PMA parts in ADs needs to concern that the part could be Request To Address Defective Parts be revised. We consider that to delay reinstalled in the affected area of an Manufacturing Authority (PMA) Parts this AD action would be inappropriate, airplane subject to this AD. We have not since we have determined that an changed the AD in this regard. The Modification and Replacement unsafe condition exists and that Parts Association (MARPA) requests replacement of certain parts must be Request To Provide for Removed Fuel that we revise the proposed AD to cover accomplished to ensure continued Tanks possible defective PMA alternative safety. The Air Transport Association (ATA), parts, rather than just a single P/N, so We have not changed the final rule in on behalf of its member Delta Airlines, that those defective PMA parts also are this regard. states no objections to the proposed AD, subject to the proposed AD. The but suggests adding a statement that no MARPA also asks that we determine Request To Provide Information for Maintaining Configuration action is required for airplanes that are whether one known PMA part contains included in the applicability statement the same defect as the original Continental recommends installing but that have had the auxiliary fuel tank equipment manufacturer’s (OEM) part. identification sleeves on the wiring near removed. The MARPA notes that the proposed the float switch connector at the We acknowledge the commenter’s AD does not address the possibility that auxiliary fuel tank. Continental states suggestion, but do not agree that any PMA parts may be installed in lieu of that such identification sleeves would change is necessary. The applicability the part referenced in Boeing Service assist operators in maintaining the statement in paragraph (c) of this AD Bulletin 737–28A1192. The commenter configuration after the proposed actions already states that this AD applies to indicates that Ametek Aerospace has have been done. The commenter notes ‘‘Boeing Model 737–200, –300, and –400 received a PMA for a float switch having that, while the proposed AD changes series airplanes * * * equipped with P/N F8300–146 which may be installed float switch wiring routing and conduit auxiliary fuel tanks.’’ in lieu of the OEM part. The MARPA P/Ns, a maintenance person could states that, by referring solely to the unintentionally change this Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Boeing service bulletin, the proposed configuration at some point in the Continental states that doing the AD would not apply to this or any other future. The commenter suggests that the actions in the Accomplishment PMA alternative, though the commenter sleeves be marked with a cautionary Instructions of the service bulletin took assumes a PMA part would contain the message that refers to the service approximately 40 work hours (20 same defect as the OEM part. The bulletin number or other identifying elapsed hours) per airplane, excluding

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41115

the time needed to gain access and close section 106, describes the authority of § 39.13 [Amended] up. the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, I We infer that Continental is asking Aviation Programs, describes in more 2. The Federal Aviation that we revise the Costs of Compliance detail the scope of the Agency’s Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 to reflect the work hours that it found authority. by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): were necessary. We do not agree. We We are issuing this rulemaking under recognize that the time necessary to do the authority described in subtitle VII, 2006–15–05 Boeing: Amendment 39–14685. the actions required by an AD may vary part A, subpart III, section 44701, Docket No. FAA–2005–20731; somewhat from operator to operator. It ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–260–AD. is not possible for us to account for all section, Congress charges the FAA with Effective Date of the potential variances. The estimate promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in (a) This AD becomes effective August 24, of 38 work hours specified in this AD air commerce by prescribing regulations 2006. is consistent with the estimate specified for practices, methods, and procedures in the service bulletin. We find no the Administrator finds necessary for Affected ADs change is needed in this regard. safety in air commerce. This regulation (b) None. Clarification of AD Requirements is within the scope of that authority Applicability because it addresses an unsafe condition (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737– As we noted previously, Revision 2 of that is likely to exist or develop on the service bulletin adds a new Part B, 200, –300, and –400 series airplanes, products identified in this rulemaking certificated in any category, equipped with which describes procedures for adding action. environmental protection to the splice auxiliary fuel tanks. and conduit. Revision 2 of the service Regulatory Findings Unsafe Condition bulletin recommends that the actions in (d) This AD was prompted by reports of Part B be accomplished but does not We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under chafing of the direct-current-powered float provide a compliance time for those switch wiring insulation in the center fuel actions. We find that the actions Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on tank. We are issuing this AD to prevent specified in Part B are not necessary to contamination of the fueling float switch of the States, on the relationship between address the unsafe condition addressed the auxiliary fuel tank by moisture or fuel, by this AD. Thus, this AD requires the national government and the States, and chafing of the float switch wiring against accomplishing only Part A of the service or on the distribution of power and the float switch conduit in the fuel tank, bulletin. We have revised paragraph (f) responsibilities among the various which could present an ignition source of this AD accordingly. We also added levels of government. inside the fuel tank that could cause a fire Note 1 to this AD to clarify that this AD For the reasons discussed above, I or explosion. does not require the actions in Part B. certify that this AD: Compliance Clarification of AMOC Paragraph (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (e) You are responsible for having the action’’ under Executive Order 12866; actions required by this AD performed within We have revised this action to clarify (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the compliance times specified, unless the the appropriate procedure for notifying DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures actions have already been done. the principal inspector before using any (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and approved AMOC on any airplane to Replacement which the AMOC applies. (3) Will not have a significant (f) Within 24 months after the effective economic impact, positive or negative, date of this AD: Replace the existing fueling Conclusion on a substantial number of small entities float switch in the auxiliary fuel tank with a We have carefully reviewed the under the criteria of the Regulatory new, improved fueling float switch, install a available data, including the comments Flexibility Act. new liner system inside the float switch received, and determined that air safety conduit, and perform related investigative We prepared a regulatory evaluation and other specified actions, by doing all of and the public interest require adopting of the estimated costs to comply with the actions in accordance with Part A of the the AD with the changes described this AD and placed it in the AD docket. Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing previously. We have determined that See the ADDRESSES section for a location Service Bulletin 737–28A1192, Revision 2, these changes will neither increase the to examine the regulatory evaluation. dated April 27, 2006. economic burden on any operator nor List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Note 1: This AD does not require doing the increase the scope of the AD. actions in Part B of the Accomplishment Costs of Compliance Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737– safety, Incorporation by reference, 28A1192, Revision 2, dated April 27, 2006. This AD will affect about 103 Safety. airplanes worldwide and 44 airplanes of Parts Installation U.S. registry. The required actions will Adoption of the Amendment (g) As of the effective date of this AD, no take about 38 work hours per airplane, person may install a fueling float switch at an average labor rate of $65 per work I Accordingly, under the authority having P/N F8300–146 on the auxiliary fuel hour. Required parts will cost about delegated to me by the Administrator, tank of any airplane. $1,634 per airplane. Based on these the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as Actions Accomplished Previously follows: figures, the estimated cost of this AD for (h) Replacements and conduit liner system U.S. operators is $180,576, or $4,104 per installations accomplished before the airplane. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES effective date of this AD in accordance with Authority for This Rulemaking Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–28A1192, I 1. The authority citation for part 39 dated March 27, 2003; or Boeing Service Title 49 of the United States Code Bulletin 737–28A1192, Revision 1, dated specifies the FAA’s authority to issue continues to read as follows: August 21, 2003; are acceptable for rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. compliance with the requirements of this AD.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41116 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Alternative Methods of Compliance Section of the FAA-approved Airplane comment received on the proposal and (AMOCs) Flight Manual (AFM). This AD results FAA’s response to that comment: (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft from a recent safety evaluation that used Comment Issue: Issuance of an AD Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to a data-driven approach to analyze the Requiring a Procedure That Has Been in approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in design, operation, and maintenance of the AFM for Almost 10 Years accordance with the procedures found in 14 the MU–2B series airplanes in order to CFR 39.19. determine their safety and define what Ralph Sorrells, Mitsubishi Heavy (2) Before using any AMOC approved in steps, if any, are necessary for their safe Industries America (MHIA), Inc. accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any contends that while MHIA does not airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify operation. Part of that evaluation was the appropriate principal inspector in the the identification of unsafe conditions object to the issuance of an AD to ensure FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding that exist or could develop on the that the feathering valve linkage District Office. affected type design airplanes. Field inspection revision is included in the AFMs, MHIA does not understand why Material Incorporated by Reference reports indicate an unsafe condition of improper rigging and/or adjustment of this condition would now merit an AD (j) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin requiring the MU–2B operators to follow 737–28A1192, Revision 2, dated April 27, the propeller feathering linkage. Service centers found the unsafe condition a procedure that has been in their AFMs 2006, to perform the actions that are required for almost 10 years. This condition has by this AD, unless the AD specifies during inspections. We are issuing this otherwise. The Director of the Federal AD to detect and correct improper not been the subject of a service Register approved the incorporation by rigging of the propeller feathering difficulty report. reference of this document in accordance linkage. The above issue, if uncorrected, Field reports have indicated that some with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. could result in degraded performance MU–2B aircraft being inspected by Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. and poor handling qualities with service centers require re-rigging and/or Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207, consequent loss of control of the adjustment of the propeller feathering for a copy of this service information. You airplane. linkage. Typically, misadjustment of the may review copies at the Docket Management feathering linkage could result in the Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, DATES: This AD becomes effective on inability of the linkage to pull the 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401, August 24, 2006. feather valve to function as designed. Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the ADDRESSES: For service information The inability to feather the propeller National Archives and Records related to this AD, contact Mitsubishi could result in asymmetric drag and Administration (NARA). For information on Heavy Industries America, Inc., 4951 control difficulties that are outside the the availability of this material at the NARA, Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, operational envelope of the aircraft. call (202) 741–6030, or go to http:// Texas 75001; telephone: (972) 934– For type certificate data sheet (TCDS) www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 5480; facsimile: ( 972) 934–5488. A2PC, Service Bulletin No. 229, dated _ _ _ code of federal regulations/ To view the AD docket, go to the February 20, 1996, was issued by MHI, ibr_locations.html. Docket Management Facility, U.S. Ltd. and mandated by issuance of the Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, Department of Transportation, 400 Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) AD 2006. Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, No. TCD 4379–96, dated February 20, Ali Bahrami, Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– 1996, to ensure the continued Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 001 or on the Internet at http:// airworthiness of the airplanes in Japan. Aircraft Certification Service. dms.dot.gov. The docket number is For TCDS A10SW, Service Bulletin [FR Doc. E6–11418 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] FAA–2006–23645; Directorate Identifier No. 090/76–003, dated January 22, 1997, BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 2006–CE–04–AD. was issued by MHI, Ltd. and the compliance was mandatory. At that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao time, issuance of an AD by FAA was not Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, ASW– DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION warranted, based on the information 150, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification and lack of risk assessment tools. Federal Aviation Administration Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Recent accidents and the service Worth, Texas 76193; telephone: (817) history of the MU–2B series airplanes 14 CFR Part 39 222–5284; facsimile: (817) 222–5960. prompted FAA to conduct an MU–2B SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Safety Evaluation. Part of that [Docket No. FAA–2006–23645; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–04–AD; Amendment 39– Discussion evaluation was the identification of 14687; AD 2006–15–07] unsafe conditions that exist or could On March 16, 2006, we issued a develop on the affected type design RIN 2120–AA64 proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal airplanes. Part of this evaluation was Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to evaluating the JCAB ADs for which Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi include an AD that would apply to there were no FAA ADs. In conducting Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU–2B Series certain MHI MU–2B series airplanes. this evaluation, the team employed new Airplanes This proposal was published in the analysis tools that provided a much AGENCY: Federal Aviation Federal Register as a notice of proposed more detailed root cause analysis of the Administration (FAA), Department of rulemaking (NPRM) on March 22, 2006 MU–2B problems than was previously Transportation (DOT). (71 FR 14425). The NPRM proposed to possible. The results of this evaluation ACTION: Final rule. require you to incorporate text from the warranted the issuance of this AD. service information into the Limitations SUMMARY: We are adopting a new Section of the FAA-approved AFM. Conclusion airworthiness directive (AD) for certain We have carefully reviewed the Comments Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) available data and determined that air MU–2B series airplanes. This AD We provided the public the safety and the public interest require requires you to incorporate text from the opportunity to participate in developing adopting the AD as proposed except for service information into the Limitations this AD. The following presents the minor editorial corrections. We have

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41117

determined that these minor costs associated with the MU–2B series small_airplanes/cos/ corrections: airplane safety evaluation conducted in mu2_foia_reading_library/. • Are consistent with the intent that 2005. As a result of that commitment, Costs of Compliance was proposed in the NPRM for the accumulating expected costs of all correcting the unsafe condition; and ADs related to the MU–2B series We estimate that this AD affects 397 • Do not add any additional burden airplane safety evaluation may be found airplanes in the U.S. registry. upon the public than was already in the Final Report section at the proposed in the NPRM. We estimate the following costs to do following Web site: http://www.faa.gov/ The Agency is committed to updating _ _ the AFM insertion: the aviation community of expected aircraft/air cert/design approvals/

Total cost Labor cost Parts cost Total cost on U.S. per airplane operators

1 work-hour × $80 = $80 ...... Not applicable .... $80 $31,760

Authority for This Rulemaking responsibilities among the various the Federal Aviation Administration Title 49 of the United States Code levels of government. amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation specifies the FAA’s authority to issue For the reasons discussed above, I Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, certify that this AD: Section 106 describes the authority of 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, action’’ under Executive Order 12866; DIRECTIVES Aviation Programs, describes in more 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the I detail the scope of the agency’s DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 1. The authority citation for part 39 authority. (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and continues to read as follows: We are issuing this rulemaking under 3. Will not have a significant Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. the authority described in Subtitle VII, economic impact, positive or negative, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, on a substantial number of small entities § 39.13 [Amended] ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that under the criteria of the Regulatory I section, Congress charges the FAA with Flexibility Act. 2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in We prepared a summary of the costs following new AD: air commerce by prescribing regulations to comply with this AD (and other 2006–15–07 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, for practices, methods, and procedures information as included in the LTD.: Amendment 39–14687; Docket No. the Administrator finds necessary for Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in FAA–2006–23645; Directorate Identifier safety in air commerce. This regulation the AD Docket. You may get a copy of 2006–CE–04–AD. is within the scope of that authority this summary by sending a request to us Effective Date because it addresses an unsafe condition at the address listed under ADDRESSES. that is likely to exist or develop on Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2006–23645; (a) This AD becomes effective on August products identified in this AD. Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–04–AD’’ 24, 2006. in your request. Regulatory Findings Affected ADs List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 We have determined that this AD will (b) None. not have federalism implications under Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Applicability Executive Order 13132. This AD will safety, Safety. (c) This AD affects the following airplane not have a substantial direct effect on Adoption of the Amendment models and serial numbers that are the States, on the relationship between certificated in any category: the national government and the States, I Accordingly, under the authority or on the distribution of power and delegated to me by the Administrator,

Type certificate Models Serial Nos.

(1) A2PC ...... MU–2B, MU–2B–10, MU–2B–15, MU–2B–20, MU–2B– 008 through 312, 314 through 320, and 322 through 25, and MU–2B–26. 347. (2) A2PC ...... MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36 ...... 501 through 651, 653 through 660, and 662 through 696. (3) A10SW ...... MU–2B–25, MU–2B–26, MU–2B–26A, and MU–2B–40 313SA, 321SA, and 348SA through 459SA. (4) A10SW ...... MU–2B–35, MU–2B–36, MU–2B–36A, and MU–2B–60 652SA, 661SA, and 697SA through 1569SA.

Unsafe Condition operation. Part of that evaluation was the in degraded performance and poor handling (d) This AD results from a recent safety identification of unsafe conditions that exist qualities with consequent loss of control of evaluation that used a data-driven approach or could develop on the affected type design the airplane. to analyze the design, operation, and airplanes. The actions specified in this AD Compliance maintenance of the MU–2B series airplanes are intended to detect and correct improper in order to determine their safety and define rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. (e) To address this problem, you must do what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe The above issue if uncorrected could result the following:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41118 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Actions Compliance Procedures

Incorporate the following information into the Within 100 hours time-in-service after August The owner/operator holding at least a private Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Air- 24, 2006 (the effective date of this AD). pilot certificate as authorized by section plane Flight Manual (AFM): 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (1) For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information A2PC insert pages 3 and 4 from Mitsubishi into the AFM as specified in paragraph (e) Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) MU–2 Service of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996. records showing compliance with this por- (2) For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. tion of the AD in accordance with section A10SW insert page 3 of 3 from MHI MU–2 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations Service Bulletin No. 090/76–003, dated Janu- (14 CFR 43.9). ary 22, 1997. (3) For all of the above airplanes the logbook entry required after each pilot check on page 3 of MHI MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 090/76– 003, dated January 22, 1997, and page 4 of MHI MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996, is not required.

Note: The language in the service DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Director of the Federal Register information states the procedure is an approved the incorporation by reference ‘‘inspection,’’ but the procedure is a ‘‘pilot Federal Aviation Administration of certain publications listed in the AD check.’’ as of August 24, 2006. 14 CFR Part 39 On December 20, 2000 (65 FR 68876, Alternative Methods of Compliance November 15, 2000), the Director of the (AMOCs) [Docket No. FAA–2006–23675; Directorate Identifier 2001–NM–320–AD; Amendment Federal Register approved the (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft 39–14686; AD 2006–15–06] incorporation by reference of certain Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Rao other publications listed in the AD. RIN 2120–AA64 Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, ASW–150, ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD Fort Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort docket on the Internet at http:// Worth, Texas 76193; telephone: (817) 222– Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2–203 and A300 B4–203 dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 5284; facsimile: (817) 222–5960, has the Management Facility, U.S. Department authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if Airplanes; Model A300 B4–600, B4– 600R, and F4–600R Series Airplanes, of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, requested using the procedures found in 14 SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, CFR 39.19. and Model C4–605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300– Washington, DC. Related Information 600 Series Airplanes); and Model Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice A310–200 and –300 Series Airplanes Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, (g) Japan Civil Aviation Bureau for service information identified in this Airworthiness Directive No. TCD 4379–96, AGENCY: Federal Aviation AD. dated February 20, 1996, addresses the Administration (FAA), Department of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim subject of this AD. Transportation (DOT). (h) For service information related to this Backman, Aerospace Engineer, ACTION: AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Final rule. International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, America, Inc., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 800, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: (972) existing airworthiness directive (AD), 934–5480; facsimile: (972) 934–5488. To Washington 98055–4056; telephone which applies to certain Airbus Model (425) 227–2797; fax (425) 227–1149. view the AD docket, go to the Docket A300 series airplanes and all Model SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Management Facility; U.S. Department of A300–600 and A310 series airplanes. Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., That AD currently requires repetitive Examining the Docket Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, inspections of the pitch trim system to You may examine the airworthiness DC 20590–001 or on the Internet at http:// detect continuity defects in the autotrim dms.dot.gov. The docket number is FAA– directive (AD) docket on the Internet at function, and follow-on corrective http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the 2006–23645; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE– actions if necessary. For certain 04–AD. Docket Management Facility office airplanes, this new AD requires between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 11, replacing the flight augmentation through Friday, except Federal holidays. 2006. computers (FACs) with new improved The Docket Management Facility office Steven W. Thompson, FACs. This AD also revises the (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, applicability of the existing AD. This the plaza level of the Nassif Building at Aircraft Certification Service. AD results from the development of a the street address stated in the [FR Doc. E6–11419 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] final action intended to address the ADDRESSES section. unsafe condition. We are issuing this BILLING CODE 4910–13–P AD to prevent a sudden change in pitch Discussion due to an out-of-trim condition The FAA issued a notice of proposed combined with an autopilot disconnect, rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR which could result in reduced part 39 to include an AD that controllability of the airplane. supersedes AD 2000–23–07, amendment DATES: This AD becomes effective 39–11977 (65 FR 68876, November 15, August 24, 2006. 2000). The existing AD applies to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41119

certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes are restated from AD 2000– We have revised this description to airplanes and all Model A300–600 and 23–07, so no new requirements for those clarify the affected airplanes. Once an A310 series airplanes. That NPRM was airplanes are introduced in this AD. AD is superseded, no airplane is subject published in the Federal Register on We agree that this AD adds no new to its requirements, and it may not be January 25, 2006 (71 FR 4062). That requirements for those airplanes. In the possible for operators to obtain a copy NPRM proposed to require repetitive revised applicability for those airplanes, to identify the affected airplanes and inspections of the pitch trim system to the forward-facing-cockpit restriction is requirements. Because AD compliance detect continuity defects in the autotrim removed because it is included in the records must be maintained function, and follow-on corrective service bulletin effectivity. We have not permanently and transferred with actions if necessary. That NPRM also revised the applicability specified in the airplanes, operators must always be able proposed to require replacing the flight NPRM. to determine whether a particular AD augmentation computers (FACs) with has been accomplished, even after it has new improved FACs on certain Request To Revise Applicability: been superseded. Therefore, we have airplanes. Paragraph (c)(3) revised paragraph (f) in this final rule to more precisely describe the airplanes Comments The same commenter found a typographical error in the NPRM. affected by that requirement. We provided the public the Paragraph (c)(3), which identifies We have also clarified paragraph (g) opportunity to participate in the affected A310–200 and –300 series in this final rule by introducing the development of this AD. We have airplanes by their associated paragraph with the airplanes affected by considered the comments that have modification number, should have this new requirement. Those airplanes been received on the NPRM. referred to Modification 12931 instead are also identified in Table 1 of the AD. Request To Revise Applicability: of Modification 12932. Conclusion Paragraph (c)(1) We acknowledge this error and have We have carefully reviewed the revised this final rule accordingly. The commenter, Airbus, requests that available data, including the comments we revise paragraph (c)(1) of the NPRM Additional Changes to NPRM that have been received, and determined to retain the applicability of the existing that air safety and the public interest AD for A300 B2–203 and A300 B4–203 The requirements of paragraph (f) of require adopting the AD with the airplanes. The applicability of AD 2000– the NPRM would apply to ‘‘airplanes changes described previously. We have 23–07 for those airplanes is: subject to the requirements of AD 2000– determined that these changes will 23–07,’’ which include: Model A300 B2–203 and A300 B4–203 neither increase the economic burden • airplanes in a forward facing cockpit version, Model A300 B2–203 and A300 B4– on any operator nor increase the scope as listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A300– 203 airplanes in a forward-facing of the AD. 22A0115, Revision 02, dated March 7, 2000. cockpit configuration; The applicability specified in paragraph • All Model A310–200 and –300 Costs of Compliance (c)(1) of the NPRM omitted the series airplanes; and This AD affects about 86 airplanes of restriction ‘‘in a forward facing cockpit • Model A300–600 series airplanes, U.S. registry. The following table version.’’ The commenter asserts that except those with Modification 12277 provides the estimated costs for U.S. the mandatory actions for those installed in production. operators to comply with this AD.

COST ESTIMATES

Work Hourly Parts Action Service bulletins hours labor rate cost Total per airplane

Inspection, per inspection cycle ...... A300–22A6042, A300–22A0115, 1 $65 None .... $65, per inspection cycle. A310–22A2053. FAC replacement ...... A300–22–6050, A310–22–2058 ...... 9 65 $2,677.. $3,262.

Authority for this Rulemaking safety in air commerce. This regulation (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory is within the scope of that authority action’’ under Executive Order 12866; Title 49 of the United States Code because it addresses an unsafe condition (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under specifies the FAA’s authority to issue that is likely to exist or develop on rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures products identified in this rulemaking (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and Section 106, describes the authority of action. the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, (3) Will not have a significant Aviation Programs, describes in more Regulatory Findings economic impact, positive or negative, detail the scope of the Agency’s We have determined that this AD will on a substantial number of small entities authority. not have federalism implications under under the criteria of the Regulatory We are issuing this rulemaking under Executive Order 13132. This AD will Flexibility Act. the authority described in Subtitle VII, not have a substantial direct effect on We prepared a regulatory evaluation Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, the States, on the relationship between of the estimated costs to comply with ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that the national government and the States, this AD and placed it in the AD docket. or on the distribution of power and section, Congress charges the FAA with See the ADDRESSES section for a location responsibilities among the various promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in to examine the regulatory evaluation. air commerce by prescribing regulations levels of government. for practices, methods, and procedures For the reasons discussed above, I the Administrator finds necessary for certify that this AD:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41120 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (1) Model A300 B2–203 and A300 B4–203 of the autotrim, in accordance with Airbus airplanes, as identified in Airbus Service Service Bulletin A300–22A6042, Revision 01 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation Bulletin A300–22A0115, Revision 02, dated (for Model A300–600 series airplanes); safety, Incorporation by reference, March 7, 2000. A300–22A0115, Revision 02 (for Model A300 Safety. (2) Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, series airplanes); or A310–22A2053, Revision B4–622, A300 B4–605R, B4–622R, A300 F4– Adoption of the Amendment 01 (for Model A310 series airplanes); all 605R, F4–622R, and A300 C4–605R Variant dated March 7, 2000; as applicable. If any F airplanes, except those modified in I Accordingly, under the authority discrepancy is found, prior to further flight, production by Airbus Modification 12932. perform all applicable corrective actions delegated to me by the Administrator, (3) Model A310–203, –204, –221, –222, (including trouble-shooting; replacing the the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as –304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes, except FCC and/or FAC, as applicable; retesting; follows: those modified in production by Airbus Modification 12931. checking the wires between certain FCC and PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS FAC pins; and repairing damaged wires) in Unsafe Condition DIRECTIVES accordance with the applicable service (d) This AD results from the development bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at I 1. The authority citation for part 39 of final action intended to address the unsafe intervals not to exceed 500 flight hours. continues to read as follows: condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent Replacement of both FACs in accordance a sudden change in pitch due to an out-of- with paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. trim condition combined with an autopilot inspection requirements of this paragraph. disconnect, which could result in reduced (1) For airplanes on which the pitch trim § 39.13 [Amended] controllability of the airplane. system test has been performed in I 2. The Federal Aviation Compliance accordance with the requirements of AD Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 2000–02–04, amendment 39–11522: Inspect (e) You are responsible for having the within 500 flight hours after accomplishment by removing amendment 39–11977 (65 actions required by this AD performed within FR 68876, November 15, 2000) and by of the test required by that AD, or within 20 the compliance times specified, unless the days after December 20, 2000 (the effective adding the following new airworthiness actions have already been done. date of AD 2000–23–07), whichever occurs directive (AD): Restatement of Requirements of AD 2000– later. 2006–15–06 Airbus: Amendment 39–14686. 23–07 (2) For all other airplanes: Inspect within Docket No. FAA–2006–23675; 20 days after December 20, 2000. Repetitive Inspections Directorate Identifier 2001–NM–320–AD. (f) For Model A300 B2–203 and A300 B4– New Requirements of this AD Effective Date 203 airplanes in a forward-facing cockpit FAC Replacement (a) This AD becomes effective August 24, configuration; all Model A310–200 and –300 2006. series airplanes; and Model A300–600 series (g) For airplanes identified in paragraphs airplanes, except those with Modification (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this AD: At the time Affected ADs 12277 installed in production: At the specified in Table 1 of this AD, replace the (b) This AD supersedes AD 2000–23–07. applicable time specified by paragraph (f)(1) two FACs with new FACs in accordance with or (f)(2) of this AD, perform an inspection of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Applicability the autotrim function by testing the flight Service Bulletin A300–22–6050, dated (c) This AD applies to the following Airbus control computer (FCC)/flight augmentation October 8, 2004; or A310–22–2058, dated airplanes, certificated in any category. computer (FAC) integrity in logic activation April 6, 2005; as applicable.

TABLE 1.—COMPLIANCE TIMES TO REPLACE FACS

Required compliance Airplane Configuration time after the model/series effective date of this AD

A300–600 ...... Without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–22–6041, Revision 01, dated February 21, 2001, or 24 months. previous version, or Modification 12277. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–22–6050, dated October 8, 2004, or Modification 12932. With accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–22–6041, Revision 01, dated February 21, 2001, or pre- 36 months. vious version, or Modification 12277. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A300–22–6050, dated October 8, 2004, or Modification 12932. A310 ...... Without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–22–2052, Revision 01, dated November 8, 2001, or 24 months. previous version, or Modification 12277. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–22–2058, dated April 6, 2005, or Modification 12931. With accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–22–2052, Revision 01, dated November 8, 2001, or pre- 36 months. vious version, or Modification 12277. And without accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A310–22–2058, dated April 6, 2005, or Modification 12931.

Part Installation airplanes), unless the FAC is in compliance Alternative Methods of Compliance (h) On or after the effective date of this AD, with this AD. (AMOCs) no person may install, on any airplane, any (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, FAC having part number (P/N) B471AAM7 ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, (for Model A300–600 series airplanes) or FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs FAC P/N B471ABM4 (for Model A310 series

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41121

for this AD, if requested in accordance with FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding Material Incorporated by Reference the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. District Office. (k) You must use the documents identified (2) Before using any AMOC approved in Related Information in Table 2 of this AD, as applicable, to accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any (j) The subject of this AD is addressed in perform the actions that are required by this airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify French airworthiness directives F–2005–111 AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. the appropriate principal inspector in the R1, dated December 21, 2005, and F–2000– 115–304 R5, dated July 6, 2005.

TABLE 2.—DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date

A300–22–6050 ...... Original ...... October 8, 2004. A300–22A0115 ...... 02, including Appendix 01 ...... March 7, 2000. A300–22A6042 ...... 01, including Appendix 01 ...... March 7, 2000. A310–22–2058 ...... Original ...... April 6, 2005. A310–22A2053 ...... 01, including Appendix 01 ...... March 7, 2000.

(1) The Director of the Federal Register AD in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and approved the incorporation by reference of 1 CFR part 51. the documents identified in Table 3 of this

TABLE 3.—NEW DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date

A300–22–6050 ...... Original ...... October 8, 2004. A310–22–2058 ...... Original ...... April 6, 2005.

(2) On December 20, 2000 (65 FR 68876, by reference of the documents identified in November 15, 2000), the Director of the Table 4 of this AD. Federal Register approved the incorporation

TABLE 4.—DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Airbus Service Bulletin Revision Date

A300–22A0115 ...... 02, including Appendix 01 ...... March 7, 2000. A300–22A6042 ...... 01, including Appendix 01 ...... March 7, 2000. A310–22A2053 ...... 01, including Appendix 01 ...... March 7, 2000.

(3) Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION dimensional inspections of the fuel Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a control drive, for wear or damage. This copy of this service information. You may Federal Aviation Administration AD results from reports of loss of the review copies at the Docket Management fuel control drive, leading to engine Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 14 CFR Part 39 overspeed, overtorque, overtemperature, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL–401, uncontained rotor failure, and [Docket No. FAA–2006–23706; Directorate Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the asymmetric thrust in multi-engine Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the Identifier 2006–NE–03–AD; Amendment 39– 14688; AD 2006–15–08] airplanes. We are issuing this AD to National Archives and Records prevent destructive overspeed that Administration (NARA). For information on RIN 2120–AA64 could result in uncontained rotor the availability of this material at the NARA, failure, and damage to the airplane. call (202) 741–6030, or go to http:// Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell www.archives.gov/federal_register/ International Inc. TPE331 Series DATES: This AD becomes effective code_of_federal_regulations/ Turboprop Engines August 24, 2006. ibr_locations.html. ADDRESSES: AGENCY: Federal Aviation You can get the service Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, Administration (FAA), Department of information identified in this AD from 2006. Transportation (DOT). Honeywell Engines, Systems & Services, Ali Bahrami, Technical Data Distribution, M/S 2101– ACTION: Final rule. Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, AZ Aircraft Certification Service. SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 85072–2170; telephone: (602) 365–2493 [FR Doc. E6–11414 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] airworthiness directive (AD) for (General Aviation); (602) 365–5535 (Commercial); fax: (602) 365–5577 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Honeywell International Inc. TPE331 series turboprop engines with certain (General Aviation and Commercial). part numbers of Woodward fuel control You may examine the AD docket on unit (FCU) assemblies installed. This the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in AD requires initial and repetitive Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41122 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, due to this spline failure. We have, 2006, the possibility of uncontained SW., Washington, DC. however, changed paragraph (d) of the separation of the engine’s high speed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: final rule (the statement of the unsafe rotating components still exists, at Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los condition) to clarify that we expect that certain conditions. Furthermore, the Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, the AD will prevent destructive commenter appears to question the need FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, overspeed that could result in for this AD by pointing out that wear of 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA uncontained rotor failure, and damage the FCU and fuel pump drive can be 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5246; to the airplane. adequately managed by following the recommended maintenance program for fax (562) 627–5210. Suggestion to Specifically Reference the engine and that any FCUs that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA Pump Splines proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with showed heavy spline wear were a proposed airworthiness directive (AD). Honeywell International Inc. also addressed by a previous AD, AD 94–26– The proposed AD applies to Honeywell suggests that we add the words ‘‘or 07. International Inc. TPE331 series pump’’ after ‘‘fuel control’’ in both We do not agree. The proposed rule turboprop engines with certain part paragraphs (f)(2) and (g)(2) of the and this AD address a continuing numbers of Woodward FCU assemblies proposed rule. Honeywell points out problem that has caused 51 known installed. We published the proposed that the proposed inspections also incidents over the past 30 years. We AD in the Federal Register on March 8, include the fuel pump spline as well as believe that the fuel pump and fuel 2006 (71 FR 11546). That action the fuel control splines. We agree that control spline failures represent a proposed to require initial and the required inspections include the serious unsafe condition that requires repetitive dimensional inspections of fuel pump spline and that if the fuel mandatory inspections and replacement the drive splines between the fuel pump pump spline fails inspection, the fuel of existing fuel control designs to and fuel control governor, for wear or pump would require repair or warrant AD action rather than reliance damage. replacement. Therefore, we have added on recommended maintenance references to the fuel pump in practices. Even after issuing AD 94–26– Examining the AD Docket paragraphs (f), (g), and (l) of the final 07, we continue to receive reports of You may examine the docket that rule. We have also split the repair and fuel control drive failures, overspeed, contains the AD, any comments replace requirement in paragraphs (f) and destructive overspeed events. With received, and any final disposition in and (g) into one sub-paragraph for the a modified FCU installed, AD 94–26–07 person at the Docket Management fuel pump, (f)(2) and (g)(2), and one for will no longer apply. Facility Docket Office between 9 a.m. the fuel control assembly, (f)(3) and Whether destructive overspeeds will and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, (g)(3), which we now refer to as the fuel continue to be possible with the new except Federal holidays. The Docket control unit (FCU) assembly. We made modified fuel control assembly, we Office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is these changes to keep clear that the recognize that this failure condition is located on the plaza level of the replacement requirements of the AD call rare and only exists under certain high- Department of Transportation Nassif for ‘‘modified’’ FCU assemblies for temperature and high-altitude ground Building at the street address stated in multi-engine airplanes. Fuel pump start conditions, with certain older ADDRESSES. Comments will be available assemblies whose splines fail design engines while the prop is ‘‘on the in the AD docket shortly after the DMS dimensional inspection may be replaced locks’’. When this set of rare conditions receives them. with serviceable fuel pump assemblies. is coupled with the fuel control drive low failure rate, a destructive overspeed Comments Request To Add the Word ‘‘Governor’’ is improbable. We consider the We provided the public the Honeywell International Inc. also modified FCU assembly to be safe. opportunity to participate in the requests that we add the word Claim That Asymmetric Thrust Would development of this AD. We have ‘‘governor’’ to describe the splined be More Prevalent considered the comments received. driveshafts between the fuel pump and the FCU. Honeywell points out that the Turbine Standard, Ltd also claims that Clarification of Discussion Paragraph proposal could be read so as not to the modified fuel control assembly Honeywell International Inc. points include a required inspection of the installed on an engine on a multi-engine out that in the discussion section of the quill shaft internal to the fuel control. airplane would actually make Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we We agree, and have added a definition asymmetric thrust more likely in the stated that installation of an improved of the term ‘‘fuel control drive’’ to event of a fuel pump or fuel control fuel control will eliminate the paragraph (k) of the final rule that drive spline failure. The commenter overspeed condition by better includes the change of ‘‘fuel control’’ to explains that after the failure of a fuel accommodating a drive spline failure. ‘‘fuel control governor.’’ control drive on a modified fuel control Honeywell suggests that we change the assembly, the modified fuel control discussion to state that replacing an Claim That Destructive Overspeed Is would deliver only 180 PPH of fuel affected fuel control assembly with an Still Possible flow, which is below flight idle fuel improved fuel control assembly will An FAA-approved repair station, flow. Since fuel flows for take off thrust only reduce the possibility of an Turbine Standard, Ltd, claims that are normally very high and the failure overspeed, rather than eliminate it destructive engine overspeed is really mode of an unmodified fuel control unit altogether. We agree that Honeywell’s only possible on the ground with the typically delivers more fuel flow, the suggestion has some logic from a risk prop ‘‘on the start locks’’ and will commenter concludes that the aircrew management perspective. We recognize continue to be possible with the new would be in a worse situation with a that the improved fuel control may not modified fuel control assembly. The modified fuel control after suffering eliminate the possibility of a drive commenter states that according to drive spline failure than with a non- spline failure or the resulting engine Honeywell’s Operating Information modified fuel control. overspeed condition, but we intend that Letters OI331–12R4, dated March 29, We do not agree. While it is true that it will eliminate a destructive overspeed 2006, and OI331–18R2, dated March 29, the fuel flow after drive spline failure

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41123

with a modified fuel control unit may optional devices for some aircraft, the products identified in this rulemaking result in a more pronounced asymmetric TTL’s marginal and temporary benefit is action. thrust condition at takeoff, we believe not a safe alternative. Regulatory Findings that after considering all ground and Conclusion flight conditions, the modified FCU We have determined that this AD will assembly is much safer than the We have carefully reviewed the not have federalism implications under applicable FCU assembly on the multi- available data, including the comments Executive Order 13132. This AD will engine aircraft. In addition, with a received, and determined that air safety not have a substantial direct effect on modified fuel control, the failure mode and the public interest require adopting the States, on the relationship between would produce a clearly evident the AD with the changes described the national government and the States, decrease in thrust that a trained aircrew previously. We have determined that or on the distribution of power and can easily recognize and safely handle, these changes will neither increase the responsibilities among the various even on takeoff. economic burden on any operator nor levels of government. increase the scope of the AD. For the reasons discussed above, I AD Does Not Address certify that this AD: Costs of Compliance Recommendations to the Pilot on (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Negative Torque Sensing We estimate this AD will affect 3,250 action’’ under Executive Order 12866; Turbine Standard, Ltd also claims that engines installed on airplanes of U.S. (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the proposed AD does not address registry. We also estimate it will take DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures recommendations to the pilot if the about one work-hour per engine to (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and engine starts to experience ‘‘negative replace the FCU assembly during a (3) Will not have a significant torque sensing’’ during flight. The normal scheduled overhaul. We also economic impact, positive or negative, commenter reasons that after the failure estimate it will take about three work- on a substantial number of small entities of a fuel control drive spline, the hours to perform a dimensional under the criteria of the Regulatory modified fuel control assembly will inspection of the fuel control drive. The Flexibility Act. deliver 180 PPH of fuel flow, which may average labor rate is $65 per work-hour. We prepared a summary of the costs be below flight idle fuel flow, and the A replacement FCU assembly will cost to comply with this AD and placed it in engine may experience negative torque about $9,700 per engine. We estimate the AD Docket. You may get a copy of sensing (NTS). In addition, ‘‘negative that on each engine, one FCU assembly this summary at the address listed torque sensing’’ at higher than normal inspection will be performed, and each under ADDRESSES. engine speeds for long periods, might engine will have the FCU assembly List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 damage the propeller. replaced. Based on these figures, we We do not agree that the AD needs to estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation include mandatory instructions to the operators to be $32,370,000. safety, Safety. aircrew concerning NTS. The The Agency is committed to updating Adoption of the Amendment commenter is correct that during flight the aviation community of expected with the modified FCU assembly costs associated with the MU–2B series I Accordingly, under the authority installed, the engine may experience airplane safety evaluation conducted in delegated to me by the Administrator, NTS after failure of a fuel control drive. 2005. As a result of that commitment, the Federal Aviation Administration We believe that having the pilot shut the accumulating expected costs of all amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: down the engine as soon as possible ADs related to the MU–2B series after drive spline failure by recognizing airplane safety evaluation may be found PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS an unresponsive power lever, consistent at the following Web site: http:// DIRECTIVES _ with the safe operation of the airplane, www.faa.gov/aircraft/air cert/ I 1. The authority citation for part 39 _ _ is the best action. We have changed design approvals/small airplanes/cos/ continues to read as follows: paragraph (o) of the final rule to mu2_foia_reading_library/. reference Honeywell’s operating Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Authority for This Rulemaking information letters. § 39.13 [Amended] Title 49 of the United States Code Claim That the Modified FCU Assembly specifies the FAA’s authority to issue I 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding Is Not Necessary rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, the following new airworthiness Lastly, Turbine Standard, Ltd claims Section 106, describes the authority of directive: that the modified FCU assembly is not the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 2006–15–08 Honeywell International Inc. necessary because of the propeller Aviation Programs, describes in more (formerly AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett governor response to an engine detail the scope of the Agency’s Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine overspeed, if the airplane is equipped authority. Company; and AiResearch with torque and temperature limiting We are issuing this rulemaking under Manufacturing Company of Arizona): the authority described in Subtitle VII, Amendment 39–14688; Docket No. (TTL) devices. The commenter believes FAA–2006–23706; Directorate Identifier that fuel bypassing the TTL devices and Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 2006–NE–03–AD. the propeller governor should maintain ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that engine speed at its set point after a fuel section, Congress charges the FAA with Effective Date control drive failure. promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) We do not agree. Engine testing shows air commerce by prescribing regulations becomes effective August 24, 2006. that the TTL devices cannot bypass for practices, methods, and procedures Affected ADs sufficient fuel and the propeller the Administrator finds necessary for (b) None. governor cannot maintain speed safety in air commerce. This regulation consistently enough to ensure a safe is within the scope of that authority Applicability operation of the TPE331 engine. In because it addresses an unsafe condition (c) This AD applies to Honeywell addition, since the TTL devices are that is likely to exist or develop on International Inc. TPE331–1, –2, –2UA, –3U,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41124 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

–3UW, –5, –5A, –5AB, –5B, –6, –6A, –10, –10UR, –11U, –12JR, –12UA, –12UAR, and unit (FCU) assemblies listed in this AD, –10AV, –10GP, –10GT, –10P, –10R, –10T, –12UHR turboprop engines with the part installed. These engines are installed on, but –10U, –10UA, –10UF, –10UG, –10UGR, numbers (P/Ns) of Woodward fuel control not limited to, the following airplanes:

Manufacturer Model

AERO PLANES, LLC (formerly McKinnon Enterprises) ...... G–21G. ALLIED AG CAT PRODUCTIONS (formerly Schweizer) ...... G–164 Series. AYRES ...... S–2R Series. BRITISH AEROSPACE LTD (formerly Jetstream) ...... 3101 and 3201 Series, and HP.137 JETSTREAM MK.1. CONSTRUCCIONES AERONAUTICAS, S.A. (CASA) ...... C–212 Series. DEHAVILLAND ...... DH104 Series 7AXC (DOVE). DORNIER ...... 228 Series. FAIRCHILD ...... SA226 and SA227 Series (SWEARINGEN MERLIN and METRO SE- RIES). GRUMMAN AMERICAN ...... G–164 Series. MITSUBISHI ...... MU–2B Series (MU–2 Series). PILATUS ...... PC–6 Series (FAIRCHILD PORTER and PEACEMAKER). POLSKIE ZAKLADY LOTNICZE SPOLKA (formerly Wytwornia Sprzetu PZL M18, PZL M18A, PZL M18B. Komunikacyjnego). PROP-JETS, INC...... 400. RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT (formerly Beech) ...... C45G, TC–45G, C–45H, TC–45H, TC–45J, G18S, E18S–9700, D18S, D18C, H18, RC–45J, JRB–6, UC–45J, 3N, 3NM, 3TM, B100, C90 and E90. SHORTS BROTHERS and HARLAND, LTD...... SC7 (SKYVAN) Series. THRUSH (ROCKWELL COMMANDER) ...... S–2R. TWIN COMMANDER (JETPROP COMMANDER) ...... 680, 690 and 695 Series.

Unsafe Condition (3) Repair or replace the FCU assembly if TPE331–10, –10R, –10U, –10UA, –10UF, (d) This AD results from reports of loss of the splines fail the dimensional inspection, –10UG, –10UGR, –10UR, –11U, –12JR, the fuel control drive, leading to engine with a serviceable modified FCU assembly. –12UA, –12UAR, and –12UHR Series Engines overspeed, overtorque, overtemperature, TPE331–1, –2, and –2UA Series Engines uncontained rotor failure, and asymmetric (j) For TPE331–10, –10R, –10U, –10UA, thrust in multi-engine airplanes. We are (h) For TPE331–1, –2, and –2UA series –10UF, –10UG, –10UGR, –10UR, –11U, issuing this AD to prevent destructive engines, replace Woodward FCU assemblies, –12JR, –12UA, –12UAR, and –12UHR series overspeed that could result in uncontained P/Ns 869199–13/ –20/ –21/ –22/ –23/ –24/– engines, replace Woodward FCU assemblies, rotor failure, and damage to the airplane. 25/ –26/ –27/ –28/ –29/ –31/ –32/ –33/ –34, P/Ns 897375–2/ –3/ –4/ –5/ –8/ –9/ –10/ –11/ and –35, with a serviceable, modified FCU –12/ –13/ –14/ –15/ –16/ –17/ –19/ –21/ –24/ Compliance assembly the next time the FCU assembly is –25/ –26, and –27, and P/Ns 897780–1/ –2/ –3/ –4/ –5/ –6/ –7/ –8/ –9/ –10/ –11/ –14/ (e) You are responsible for having the removed for cause that requires return, or actions required by this AD performed within –15/ –16/ –17/ –18/ –19/ –20/ –21/ –22/ –23/ when the FCU assembly requires overhaul, –24/ –25/ –26/ –27/ –30/ –32/ –34/ –36/ –37, the compliance times specified unless the but not later than December 31, 2012. actions have already been done. and –38, and P/Ns 893561–17/ –18, and –19, Information on replacement FCU assembly P/ with a serviceable, modified FCU assembly Initial Inspection of Engines With Affected Ns, configuration management, rework, and the next time the FCU assembly is removed FCU Assemblies replacement information, can be found in for cause that requires return, or when the (f) At the next scheduled inspection of the Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. FCU assembly requires overhaul, but not fuel control drive, but within 1,000 hours-in- TPE331–A73–0271, Revision 1, dated later than December 31, 2012. Information on service after the effective date of this AD: January 25, 2006. replacement FCU assembly P/Ns, configuration management, rework, and (1) Perform an initial dimensional TPE331–3U, –3UW, –5, –5A, –5AB, –5B, –6, inspection of the fuel control drive for wear replacement information, can be found in –6A, –10AV, –10GP, –10GT, –10P, and –10T Honeywell ASB No. TPE331–A73–0254, or damage. Information on spline inspection Series Engines Revision 2, dated June 17, 2005. can be found in Section 72–00–00 of the applicable maintenance manuals. (i) For TPE331–3U, –3UW, –5, –5A, –5AB, Definitions –5B, –6, –6A, –10AV, –10GP, –10GT, –10P, (2) Repair or replace the fuel pump, if the (k) For the purposes of this AD: spline fails the dimensional inspection, with and –10T series engines, replace Woodward (1) A ‘‘serviceable, modified FCU any serviceable fuel pump. FCU assemblies, P/Ns 893561–7/ –8/ –9/ assembly’’ for engines affected by paragraph (3) Repair or replace the FCU assembly, if –10/ –11/ –14/ –15/ –16/ –20/ –26/ –27, and (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, is an FCU assembly the splines fail the dimensional inspection, –29, and P/Ns 897770–1/ –3/ –7/ –9/ –10/ with a P/N not listed in this AD. with a serviceable modified FCU assembly. –11/ –12/ –14 / –15/ –16/ –25/ –26, and –28, (2) The ‘‘fuel control drive’’ is a series of Repetitive Inspections of Engines With with a serviceable, modified FCU assembly mating splines located between the fuel Affected FCU Assemblies the next time the FCU assembly is removed pump and fuel control governor, consisting for cause that requires return, or when the of the following four drive splines: The fuel (g) Thereafter, within 1,000 hours since- FCU assembly requires overhaul, but not pump internal spline, the fuel control last-inspection: later than December 31, 2012. Information on external ‘‘quill shaft’’ spline, and the stub (1) Perform repetitive dimensional shaft internal and external splines. replacement FCU assembly P/Ns, inspections of the fuel control drive, for wear (3) A ‘‘removal for cause that requires or damage. Information on spline inspection configuration management, rework, and return’’, for engines affected by paragraph (h), can be found in Section 72–00–00 of the replacement information, can be found in (i), or (j) of this AD, is an FCU assembly that applicable maintenance manuals. Honeywell ASB No. TPE331–A73–0262, has displayed an unserviceable or (2) Repair or replace the fuel pump, if the Revision 2, dated June 17, 2005. unacceptable operating condition requiring spline fails the dimensional inspection, with the FCU to be removed from service and sent any serviceable fuel pump. to a repair or overhaul shop.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41125

Optional Method of Compliance for TPE331 pigments as color additives in ingested each objection must meet the following Series Engines Installed On Single-Engine drugs. After reviewing the objections, conditions: (1) Must be submitted on or Airplanes the agency has concluded that the before the 30th day after the date of (l) As an optional method of compliance to objections do not raise issues of material publication of the final rule, (2) must be paragraph (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, for fact that justify a hearing or otherwise separately numbered, (3) must specify TPE331 series engines installed on single- provide a basis for revoking the with particularity the provision of the engine airplanes, having an affected amendment to the regulations. FDA is regulation or proposed order objected Woodward FCU assembly perform the to, (4) must specifically state the following steps as necessary: also establishing a new effective date for (1) Continue repetitive dimensional this color additive regulation, which provision of the regulation or proposed inspections of the fuel control drive, for wear was stayed by the filing of objections. order on which a hearing is requested or damage as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of DATES: The final rule that published in (failure to request a hearing on an this AD. the Federal Register of July 22, 2005 objection constitutes a waiver of the (2) Repair or replace the fuel pump or FCU (the July 2005 final rule) (70 FR 42271), right to a hearing on that objection), and assembly if the splines fail the dimensional with an effective date of August 23, (5) must include a detailed description inspection, with any serviceable fuel pump 2005, was stayed by the filing of and analysis of the factual information or FCU assembly. objections as provided for under section to be presented in support of the Terminating Action 701(e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and objection if a hearing is requested (m) Performing an FCU assembly Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. (failure to include a description and replacement as specified in paragraph (h), (i), 371(e)(2)) as of August 22, 2005. This analysis for an objection constitutes a or (j) of this AD, is terminating action for the final rule is newly effective as of July waiver of the right to a hearing on that initial and repetitive inspections required by 20, 2006. objection). this AD. Following publication of the final rule FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: for the use of mica-based pearlescent Alternative Methods of Compliance ¨ Aydin Orstan, Center for Food Safety pigments to color ingested drugs, FDA (n) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft and Applied Nutrition (HFS–255), Food received two submissions within the 30- Certification Office, has the authority to and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint day objection period. One submission approve alternative methods of compliance Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, objected to the use of pearlescent for this AD if requested using the procedures 301–436–1301. found in 14 CFR 39.19. pigments in food. The submission did SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: not request a hearing. Related Information I. Introduction The second submission objected to (o) Information pertaining to operating the final rule on three grounds: (1) The recommendations for applicable engines after In the July 2005 final rule, FDA subject pearlescent pigments would a fuel control drive failure is contained in OI amended the color additive regulations have iron contaminants, (2) these iron 331–12R5 dated July 10, 2006, for multi- to provide for the safe use of mica-based contaminants would cause stability engine airplanes and in OI 331–18R3 dated pearlescent pigments prepared from issues for active ingredients in drugs, July10, 2006, for single-engine airplanes. synthetic iron oxide, mica, and titanium and (3) the use of iron-containing Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on dioxide to color ingested drugs. The pearlescent pigments to color drugs July 14, 2006. preamble to the final rule advised that would limit the availability of Francis A. Favara, objections to the final rule and requests medications for those who are Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, for a hearing were due by August 22, monitoring their iron intake. This Aircraft Certification Service. 2005, and that the rule would be submission requested a hearing on these [FR Doc. E6–11540 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] effective on August 23, 2005, except that issues. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P any provisions may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. III. Standards for Granting a Hearing Specific criteria for determining II. Objections and Requests for a whether to grant or deny a request for DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Hearing HUMAN SERVICES a hearing are set out in § 12.24(b). Under Sections 701(e)(2) and 721(d) of the that regulation, a hearing will be granted Food and Drug Administration act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)(2) and 379e(d)) if the material submitted by the collectively provide that, within 30 days requester shows, among other things, 21 CFR Part 73 after publication of an order relating to that: (1) There is a genuine and a color additive regulation, any person substantial factual issue for resolution at [Docket No. 1998C–0431] (formerly 98C– adversely affected by such an order may a hearing (a hearing will not be granted 0431) file objections, ‘‘specifying with on issues of policy or law); (2) the Listing of Color Additives Exempt particularity the provisions of the order factual issue can be resolved by From Certification; Mica-Based deemed objectionable, stating the available and specifically identified Pearlescent Pigments grounds therefor, and requesting a reliable evidence (a hearing will not be public hearing upon such objections.’’ granted on the basis of mere allegations AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, FDA may deny a hearing request if the or denials or general descriptions of HHS. objections to the regulation do not raise positions and contentions); (3) the data ACTION: Final rule; response to genuine and substantial issues of fact and information submitted, if objections; removal of stay. that can be resolved at a hearing (21 established at a hearing, would be CFR 12.24(b)(1)). (See also Community adequate to justify resolution of the SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Nutrition Institute v. Young, 773 F.2d factual issue in the way sought by the Administration (FDA) is responding to 1356, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, requester (a hearing will be denied if the two objections that it received on the 475 U.S. 1123 (1986).) data and information submitted are final rule that amended the color Objections and requests for a hearing insufficient to justify the factual additive regulations to provide for the are governed by part 12 (21 CFR part 12) determination urged, even if accurate); safe use of mica-based pearlescent of FDA’s regulations. Under § 12.22(a), (4) resolution of the factual issue in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41126 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

way sought by the person is adequate to question in a material way the drugs, not foods. The objection to the justify the action requested (a hearing underpinnings of the regulation at use of pearlescent pigments in food is will not be granted on factual issues that issue’’ (Pactra Industries v. CPSC, 555 outside the scope of the July 2005 final are not determinative with respect to the F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1977)). Finally, courts rule. Therefore, FDA is denying this action requested, e.g., if the action have uniformly recognized that a objection. would be the same even if the factual hearing need not be held to resolve The second submission asserted that issue were resolved in the way sought); questions of law or policy (see Citizens the subject pearlescent pigments would (5) the action requested is not for Allegan County, Inc. v. FPC, 414 be contaminated with iron salts and that inconsistent with any provision in the F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Sun Oil Co. these contaminants would cause act or any regulation particularizing v. FPC, 256 F.2d 233, 240 (5th Cir.), cert. stability issues for active ingredients in statutory standards (the proper denied, 358 U.S. 872 (1958)). drugs that could interfere with drug procedure in those circumstances is for Even if the objections raise material efficacy. The submission also asserted the person requesting the hearing to issues of fact, FDA need not grant a that the iron contaminants would petition for an amendment or waiver of hearing if those same issues were increase exposure to iron. Furthermore, the regulation involved); and (6) the adequately raised and considered in an the submission was concerned that the requirements in other applicable earlier proceeding. Once an issue has use of iron-containing pearlescent regulations, e.g., 21 CFR 10.20, 12.21, been raised and considered, a party is pigments to color drugs would limit the 12.22, 314.200, 514.200, and 601.7(a), estopped from raising the same issue in availability of medications for those and in the notice issuing the final a later proceeding without new who are monitoring their iron intake. regulation or the notice of opportunity evidence. The various judicial doctrines This submission requested a hearing on for a hearing are met. dealing with finality can be validly these issues. A party seeking a hearing is required applied to the administrative process. In Although this submission claimed to meet a ‘‘threshold burden of explaining why these principles ‘‘self- that the subject pearlescent pigments tendering evidence suggesting the need evidently’’ ought to apply to an agency would be contaminated with iron salts, for a hearing’’ (Costle v. Pacific Legal proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals the submission did not provide any Foundation, 445 U.S. 198, 214–215 for the District of Columbia Circuit factual information to support this (1980), reh. denied, 446 U.S. 947 (1980), wrote: ‘‘The underlying concept is as claim. The July 2005 final rule was in citing Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & simple as this: Justice requires that a response to a color additive petition Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609, 620–621 party have a fair chance to present his (CAP 8C0257) that FDA had received (1973)). An allegation that a hearing is position. But overall interests of from the manufacturer of the subject necessary to ‘‘sharpen the issues’’ or to administration do not require or pearlescent pigments. During its review ‘‘fully develop the facts’’ does not meet generally contemplate that he will be of the petition, FDA determined what this test (Georgia Pacific Corp. v. EPA, given more than a fair opportunity.’’ specifications would be necessary to 671 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 1982)). If Retail Clerks Union, Local 1401 v. ensure the safe use of pearlescent a hearing request fails to identify any NLRB, 463 F.2d 316, 322 (D.C. Cir. pigments in ingested drugs and factual evidence that would be the 1972). (See also Costle v. Pacific Legal incorporated these specifications in the subject of a hearing, there is no point in Foundation, supra at 215–220; Pacific new § 73.1128 (21 CFR 73.1128). FDA holding one. In judicial proceedings, a Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, also reviewed the results of analyses of court is authorized to issue summary Inc., 404 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1968), cert. several batches of pearlescent pigments judgment without an evidentiary denied, 393 U.S. 1093 (1969).) and determined that they complied with hearing whenever it finds that there are In summary, a hearing request must the specifications in the new regulation. no genuine issues of material fact in present sufficient credible evidence to In the preamble to the final rule, FDA dispute, and a party is entitled to raise a material issue of fact, and the discussed the manufacturing process of judgment as a matter of law (see Rule evidence must be adequate to resolve the subject pearlescent pigments. FDA 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). the issue as requested and to justify the noted that the starting materials for The same principle applies to action requested. these pigments included soluble iron administrative proceedings (see § 12.28). One of the objections to the final rule salts and that the manufacturing A hearing request must not only on mica-based pearlescent pigments did incorporated a heating (calcination) step contain evidence, but that evidence not request a hearing. Therefore, FDA at temperatures up to 900 °C. FDA also should raise a material issue of fact will rule upon the objection under noted that during calcination, the concerning whether a meaningful §§ 12.24 through 12.28 (as cited in starting iron salts are converted into hearing might be held (Pineapple § 12.30(b)). iron oxide. Growers Association v. FDA, 673 F.2d The submission also asserted that the 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1982)). Where the IV. Analysis of Objections iron contaminants would destabilize issues raised in the objection are, even FDA addresses each of the two active ingredients in drugs, which if true, legally insufficient to alter the submissions in the following would affect drug efficacy. As noted decision, the agency need not grant a paragraphs, as well as the evidence and previously in this document, the hearing (see Dyestuffs and Chemicals, information filed in support of each, submission did not provide any factual Inc. v. Flemming, 271 F.2d 281 (8th Cir. comparing each submission and the information to support the claim that 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 911 information submitted in support of it to the subject pearlescent pigments would (1960)). FDA need not grant a hearing in the standards for ruling on objections contain iron contaminants. each case where an objector submits and granting a hearing in § 12.24. The third assertion in the submission additional information or posits a novel The first submission objected to the was that the iron oxide in the subject interpretation of existing information use of pearlescent pigments in food. pearlescent pigments is ‘‘expected to (see United States v. Consolidated This submission did not request a limit availability of medications for the Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432 (9th hearing. FDA notes that the final rule persons who must monitor iron intake.’’ Cir. 1971)). In other words, a hearing is that is the subject of the objection However, the submission did not justified only if the objections are made provides for the safe use of mica-based provide any factual information to in good faith and if they ‘‘draw in pearlescent pigments to color ingested support this claim. FDA notes that, as

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41127

indicated in the preamble to the July regulation by establishing a new comment to the direct final rule; this 2005 final rule, the bioavailability of effective date of July 20, 2006 for this comment recommended a number of these pigments and/or their individual regulation listing mica-based clarifications to the original ROPS components when ingested is expected pearlescent pigments prepared from standards published in the direct final to be low. synthetic iron oxide, mica, and titanium rule. In the present notice, the Agency This submission did not provide any dioxide to color ingested drugs. As is making corrections and technical factual information to modify FDA’s announced in the July 22, 2005, final amendments to the ROPS standards in conclusion that the subject pearlescent rule, the previous effective date of the response to this comment, as a result of pigments present no toxic potential regulation was August 23, 2005. editorial errors found in the ROPS when ingested at levels estimated by the Therefore, under sections 701 and 721 standards published in the direct final agency, based on their proposed use in of the act, notice is given that the rule, and to improve consistency among coloring ingested drugs. Namely, this objections filed in response to the July the figures generated for these submission did not provide specifically 2005 final rule do not form the basis for standards. The Agency finds that these identified reliable evidence that can further stay of this final rule or require corrections and technical amendments lead to resolution of a factual issue in amendment of the regulations. do not change the substantive dispute (§ 12.24(b)(2)). A hearing will Accordingly, the stay of § 73.1128 that requirements of the ROPS standards. not be granted on the basis of mere FDA is announcing in this document is DATES: The corrections and technical allegations or denials or general removed effective July 20, 2006. descriptions of positions and amendments specified by this contentions (§ 12.24(b)(2)). Therefore, List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73 rulemaking become effective on July 20, 2006. FDA is denying this objection. Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, V. Summary and Conclusions Medical devices. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: I The agency is denying the objections Therefore, under the Federal Food, Press inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA to the final rule in the two submissions Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, Office of Communications, Room N– received on the following bases. The 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 objection to the use of pearlescent 362, 371, 379e) and under authority Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, pigments in food is outside the scope of delegated to the Commissioner of Food DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–1999. the July 2005 final rule, which amended and Drugs (section 1410.10 of the FDA General and technical information: the color additive regulations to provide Staff Manual Guide), notice is given that Matthew Chibbaro, Acting Director, for the safe use of mica-based objections and a request for a hearing Office of Safety Systems, Directorate of pearlescent pigments to color ingested were filed in response to the July 22, Standards and Guidance, Occupational drugs. The objections in the second 2005, final rule. Notice is also given that Safety and Health Administration, U.S. submission that the subject pearlescent the agency is denying these objections. Department of Labor, Room N–3609, pigments would contain iron Accordingly, the amendments issued 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., contaminants, that the iron thereby are effective July 20, 2006. Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) contaminants would cause stability Dated: July 14, 2006. 693–2255. issues for active ingredients in drugs, Jeffrey Shuren, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On and that the use of the pigments to color Assistant Commissioner for Policy. December 29, 2005, OSHA published a ingested drugs will limit availability of [FR Doc. E6–11536 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] direct final rule in the Federal Register medications for the persons who must BILLING CODE 4160–01–S reinstating its original construction and monitor their iron intake, are not agriculture standards that regulate the supported by any factual information. testing of roll-over protective structures The filing of the objections served to (‘‘ROPS’’) used to protect employees stay automatically the effectiveness of DEPARTMENT OF LABOR who operate wheel-type tractors (see 70 § 73.1128. Section 701(e)(2) of the act Occupational Safety and Health FR 76979). The Agency received only states: ‘‘Until final action upon such Administration one public comment (Ex. 3–1) on the objections is taken by the Secretary direct final rule, which it determined * * *, the filing of such objections shall 29 CFR Parts 1926 and 1928 was not a significant adverse comment. operate to stay the effectiveness of those The commenter recommended several provisions of the order to which the [Docket No. S–270–A] clarifications to the ROPS standards objections are made.’’ Section 701(e)(3) RIN 1218–AC15 of the act further stipulates that ‘‘As published in the direct final rule. soon as practicable * * *, the Secretary Roll-Over Protective Structures The table below describes the shall by order act upon such objections clarifications recommended by the and make such order public.’’ AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health commenter who responded to the direct The agency has completed its Administration (OSHA), Labor. final rule, and OSHA’s response to these evaluation of the objections and ACTION: Final rule; corrections and recommendations. This response concludes that a continuation of the stay technical amendments. provides the Agency’s rationale for of this regulation is not warranted. accepting a recommendation or In the absence of any other objections SUMMARY: On December 29, 2005, OSHA excluding it from further consideration. and requests for a hearing, the agency, published a direct final rule in the Accordingly, OSHA is making a number therefore, further concludes that this Federal Register reinstating its original of corrections and technical document constitutes final action on the construction and agriculture standards amendments to the ROPS standards for objections received in response to the that regulate the testing of roll-over construction (§ 1926.1002) and regulation as prescribed in section protective structures (‘‘ROPS’’) used to agriculture (§§ 1928.52 and 1928.53) 701(e)(2) of the act. Therefore, the protect employees who operate wheel- based on the commenter’s agency is acting to end the stay of the type tractors. OSHA received one recommendations.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41128 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Recommendation OSHA’s response

Figure W–15: • 05T needs to be 0.5T and 09T needs to be 0.9T OSHA added the decimal points as recommended. However, instead • (50 DEG ± 5 DEG) (1270 plus/minus 127 mm) needs to be (50 of revising ‘‘DEG’’ to ‘‘INCHES,’’ OSHA is replacing the entire cap- inches plus/minus 5 inches) (1270 plus/minus 127 mm). tion with ‘‘45 in. min. (1143 mm)’’ to make this figure consistent with • Path of travel should also state center of tractor Figure C–10. Regarding the third recommendation, OSHA is adding a caption to the figure indicating the center of the tractor on the path of travel. For consistency, OSHA added this caption as well to Figure C–10. However, this caption applies only to the linear center of the tractor, which does not necessarily represent the tractor’s center of gravity.

Figure W–16: Under 1926.1002(i)(1)(i), Dimension D equals 2 inches (51 mm) in- OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. Dimension side of the frame upright to the vertical centerline of the seat. D represents the minimum deflection from the true horizontal per- However, because Dimension G is 24 inches (610 mm), Dimen- mitted during side-load testing, which must be at least 2 inches (51 sion D should be 12 inches (305 mm). mm). Dimension G is the minimum design limit for the width of a ROPS (i.e., the ROPS must have a width of at least 24 inches). Therefore, the dimensions in Figure W–16 are correct.

Figure W–17: Under 1926.1002(i)(1)(i), Dimension F equals not less than 0 OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. Dimension inches (0 mm) and not more than 12 inches (305 mm) meas- F represents two values: 12 inches is the pre-load design dimension ured at the centerline of the seat backrest to the crossbar along and 0 is the maximum deflection permitted during rear-load testing the line of load application. Clarify whether the distance between (i.e., the distance between the two lines circumscribed by Dimension the seat backrest and the frame cannot be more than 12 inches F can be no greater than 12 inches during testing). Therefore, the di- after impact. mensions in Figure W–17 are correct and clear.

Figure W–18: Figure W–18 does not have any dimension specifications or an ex- OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. The figure planation of what it is and what it does. legend states that the figure represents a method for measuring in- stantaneous deflection, which is explained in § 1926.1002(g)(1)(ii) and (g)(2)(v).

Figure W–19: • 08Lmax needs to be 0.8Lmax. OSHA added the decimal point as recommended. However, OSHA is • Load L, lb (kg) ¥ Define as L = static load, lb (kg) not revising ‘‘Load L, lb (kg)’’ or ‘‘Deflection D, in. (mm)’’ because • Deflection D, in. (mm) ¥ Define as D = deflection under L, in. these terms are defined in the regulatory text at § 1926.1002(j)(3). (mm)

Figure W–20: • EU = OQD/12 ft-lb ¥ Add an explanation that dividing by 12 OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. OSHA converts [to] in-lb. does not believe it is necessary to specifically explain that dividing • Load L, lb (kg) ¥ Define L = static load, lb (kg) by 12 converts ft-lbs to in-lbs. See OSHA’s response above for Fig- • Deflection D, in. (mm) ¥ Define D = deflection under L, in. (mm) ure W–19 regarding the comment on defining ‘‘Load L, lb (kg)’’ and ‘‘Deflection D, in. (mm).’’

Figure W–21: Add the weight of the pendulum (4,410 lbs (2,000 kg)) and the OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment because height of the pendulum (18–22 ft (5.5–6.7 m)) on the drawing. the information in the figure is provided in § 1926.1002(h)(1)(ii).

Figure W–24: • Correct the first notation to read: H = 4.92 + 0.00190 W or H′ = OSHA is adding the decimal points in the notation ‘‘H = 4.92 + 125 + 0.107 W′. 0.00190W or H′ = 125 + 0.107W′,’’ as well as correcting the second • Correct the second notation to read: W = tractor weight as spec- notation to read ‘‘W = tractor weight as specified by 29 CFR ified by 29 CFR 1926.1002(e)(1) and (e)(3), in lb. (W′, kg). 1926.1002(e)(1) and (e)(3) in pounds (W′ in kg).’’

Figures C–2, C–3, C–8, C–9, C–13, C–14, C–15, C–16: Define SRP as ‘‘Seat Reference Point.’’ OSHA is not making a change in response to this comment. Both 1928.52(d)(iv) and 1928.53(d)(iv) define this term, and OSHA be- lieves these definitions are sufficient.

Figure C–4: This drawing does not have any dimension specifications or an ex- See OSHA’s response above for Figure W–18. In this case, the meth- planation of what it is and what it does. od is explained in §§ 1928.52(d)(3)(i)(E) and 1928.53(d)(3)(i)(E).

Figure C–5: • Load L, lb (kg) ¥ Define as L = static load, lb (kg) See OSHA’s response above for Figure W–19. In this case, the terms • Deflection D, in. (mm) ¥ Define as D = deflection under L, in. are defined in §§ 1928(d)(2)(ii) and 1928(d)(2)(ii). (mm)

Figure C–6: Add the weight of the pendulum (4,410 lbs (2,000 kg)) and the See OSHA’s response above for Figure W–21. In this case, the infor- height of the pendulum (18–22 ft (5.5–6.7 m)) on the drawing. mation is provided in §§ 1928.52(d)(3)(i)(B) and 1928.53(d)(3)(i)(B).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41129

Recommendation OSHA’s response

Figure C–7: • The second notation should read: W = tractor weight (see 29 OSHA is substituting Figure W–24 for this figure, but is correcting the CFR 1928.51(a) in lb. (W′, kg). notation in the new figure to read ‘‘W = tractor weight as specified by • Clarify whether impact energy is in ft-lbs × 1000 instead of lb × 29 CFR 1928.51(a) in pounds (W′ in kg).’’ This correction clarifies 1000 that impact energy is in ft-lbs.

29 CFR 1928.53(d)(2)(ii): Revise the notation to read W = Tractor weight (see 29 CFR OSHA is revising this notation as recommended. 1928.51(a)) in lb (W′ in kg).

Other corrections and technical sentence, correcting the reference to obtain images that are clearer and more amendments. In addition to the Figure W–23 to ‘‘Figure W–18.’’ comprehensible than the images used in revisions described in the table above, A number of figures appear in the the direct final rule. Therefore, OSHA is OSHA carefully reviewed the direct original ROPS standards. These figures replacing the figures published in the final rule and found that several are: W–14 through W–24 of § 1926.1002; direct final rule with these newly additional corrections should be made W–25 through W–28 of § 1926.1003; C– generated figures. to the original ROPS standards 1 through C–11 of § 1928.52; and C–12 published in the direct final rule. In this through C–16 of § 1928.53. After In the process of generating the new regard, the Agency is making the publishing the direct final rule for ROPS figures, the Agency made stylistic, following two corrections to in the Federal Register (70 FR 76979), editorial, and technical corrections to § 1926.1002(h)(1)(v): Correcting the the Agency reproduced the figures in them. The following table describes the typographical error in the first sentence these ROPS standards using state-of-the- technical corrections made to the from ‘‘f’’ to ‘‘of’’; and, in the second art computer-design technology to figures.

Figures Correction

W–15 ...... Added the same legend as the legend to Figure C–10; added the caption ‘‘CENTER OF TRACTOR’’ as in Figure C–10. C–4 ...... Replaced the legend with the legend to Figure W–18. C–5 ...... Substituted Figure W–19 for this figure. C–6 ...... Added the phrase ‘‘PIN MARKING POSITION OF’’ to the caption ‘‘CENTER OF GRAVITY’’ as in Figure W–21. C–7 ...... Substituted Figure W–24 for this figure. C–8, C–15, and W–22 ...... Revised the caption addressing the beam under the tractor to read, ‘‘BEAM CLAMPED IN FRONT OF BOTH REAR WHEELS AFTER ANCHORING, 6 IN. (15 CM) SQUARE.’’ C–10 ...... Added the captions ‘‘PATH OF TRAVEL’’ and ‘‘RAMP’’ as in Figure W–15; added the phrase ‘‘TEST TRACTOR’’ to the caption ‘‘REAR WHEEL TREAD’’ as in Figure W–15.

Exemption from notice and comment List of Subjects Signed at Washington, DC on July 12, 2006. procedures. OSHA has determined that Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 29 CFR Part 1926 the corrections and technical Assistant Secretary of Labor. amendments made by this rulemaking Construction industry, Motor vehicle Amended Standards are not subject to the procedures for safety, Occupational safety and health. public notice-and-comment rulemaking I Based on the explanations provided specified under Section 4 of the 29 CFR Part 1928 by the preamble to this document, Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Agriculture, Motor vehicle safety, OSHA is amending 29 CFR parts 1926 553), or Section 6(b) of the Occupational Occupational safety and health. and 1928 as follows: Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)), because these corrections and Authority and Signature PART 1926—[AMENDED] technical amendments do not affect the This document was prepared under Subpart W—[Amended] substantive requirements or coverage of the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., the ROPS standards for the construction I 1. The authority citation for subpart W Assistant Secretary of Labor for and agriculture industries. This of part 1926 continues to read as Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. rulemaking does not modify or revoke follows: Department of Labor, 200 Constitution existing rights and obligations, and new Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract rights and obligations have not been Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 The Agency is issuing this notice under established by this rulemaking. Under U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the the following authorities: Sections 4, 6, this rulemaking, the Agency is merely Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and correcting or clarifying the existing (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 regulatory requirements of the ROPS 657); Section 3704 of the Contract Work (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 standards. Therefore, OSHA finds that Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR public notice-and-comment procedures U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Secretary of Labor’s 50017), or 5–2002 (67 FR 65008), as are unnecessary within the meaning of applicable. Order 5–2002 (67 FR 65008); and 29 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and § 1911.5. I 2. Revise paragraph (h)(1)(v) of CFR part 1911. § 1926.1002 to read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41130 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

§ 1926.1002 Protective frames (roll-over simple friction device is illustrated in PART 1928—[AMENDED] protective structures, known as ROPS) for Figure W–18. wheel-type agricultural and industrial Subpart C—[Amended] tractors used in construction. * * * * * * * * * * I 3. In Appendix A to subpart W, I 4. The authority citation to part 1928 (h) * * * remove existing Figures W–14 through continues to read as follows: (1) * * * W–28 and add in their place new BILLING CODE 4510–26–P (v) Means shall be provided for Figures W–14 through W–28. [insert indicating the maximum instantaneous figures W–14 through W–28] deflection along the line of impact. A * * * * *

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:03 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41131

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.009 41132 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.010 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41133

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.011 41134 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.012 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41135

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.013 41136 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.014 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41137

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.015 41138 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.016 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41139

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.017 41140 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.018 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41141

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.019 41142 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.020 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41143

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.021 41144 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.022 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41145

BILLING CODE 4510–26–C Section 1928.21 also issued under Section § 1928.53 Protective enclosures for wheel- Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the 29, Hazardous Materials Transportation type agricultural tractors—test procedures Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–615, and performance requirements. (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of 104 Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801–1819 and 5 * * * * * Labor’s Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 U.S.C. 553)). (d) * * * (41 FR 25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 1–90 (55 FR 9033), 6–96 (62 FR 111), 3–2000 (65 FR I 5. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of (2) * * * 50017) or 5–2002 (67 FR 65008) as § 1928.53 to read as follows: (ii) The following definitions shall applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. apply:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:03 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.023 41146 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

W = Tractor weight (see 29 CFR 1928.51(a)) D = Deflection under L, in. (mm); FER = Factor of energy ratio; in lb (W ′ in kg); L–D = Static load-deflection diagram; FERis = Eu/Eis; and Eis = Energy input to be absorbed during side Lmax = Maximum observed static load; FERir = Eu/Eir. ′ loading in ft-lb (E is in J [joules]); Load Limit = Point on a continuous L–D * * * * * Eis = 723 + 0.4 W (E ′is = 100 + 0.12 W ′); curve where the observed static load is I 6. In Appendix B to subpart C, remove Eir = Energy input to be absorbed during rear 0.8 Lmax on the down slope of the curve existing Figures C–1 through C–16 and loading in ft-lb (E ′ir in J); (see Figure C–5); Eir = 0.47 W (E ′ir = 0.14 W ′); Eu = Strain energy absorbed by the protective add in their place new Figures C–1 L = Static load, lbf [pounds force], (N) enclosure in ft-lbs (J); area under the L– through C–16. [newtons]; D curve; BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.024 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41147

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.025 41148 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.026 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41149

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.027 41150 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.028 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41151

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.029 41152 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.030 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41153

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.031 41154 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.032 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41155

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.033 41156 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.034 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41157

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.035 41158 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.036 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41159

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.037 41160 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.038 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41161

* * * * * [FR Doc. 06–6327 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–26–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES ER20JY06.039 41162 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk state law. Accordingly, the AGENCY J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Administrator certifies that this rule Environmental Protection Agency, 290 will not have a significant economic 40 CFR Part 52 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New impact on a substantial number of small York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3381 or entities under the Regulatory Flexibility [Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2006–0303, [email protected]. Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this FRL–8191–3] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rule approves pre-existing requirements Approval and Promulgation of under state law and does not impose I. What was included in New York’s Implementation Plans; New York any additional enforceable duty beyond submittal? Ozone State Implementation Plan that required by state law, it does not Revision On July 8, 1994, New York State contain any unfunded mandate or Department of Environmental significantly or uniquely affect small AGENCY: Environmental Protection Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to governments, as described in the Agency (EPA). EPA a request to revise its SIP. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ACTION: Final rule. revisions consisted of amendments to (Pub. L. 104–4). Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules This rule also does not have tribal SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection and Regulations (NYCRR) Parts 214, implications because it will not have a Agency is approving a revision to the ‘‘Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,’’ and substantial direct effect on one or more New York State Implementation Plan 216, ‘‘Iron and/or Steel Processes.’’ Parts Indian tribes, on the relationship (SIP) related to the control of oxides of 214 and 216 were adopted by the State between the Federal Government and nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic on July 8, 1994, and became effective on Indian tribes, or on the distribution of compounds (VOC) from stationary September 22, 1994. power and responsibilities between the sources. The SIP revision consists of On May 2, 2005 (71 FR 25800), EPA Federal Government and Indian tribes, amendments to Title 6 of the New York proposed to approve revised Parts 214 as specified by Executive Order 13175 Codes, Rules and Regulations, Parts 214, and 216 into the federally approved (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This ‘‘Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,’’ and New York SIP. For a detailed discussion action also does not have federalism 216, ‘‘Iron and/or Steel Processes.’’ The on the content and requirements of the implications because it does not have revision was submitted to comply with revisions to New York’s regulations, the substantial direct effects on the states, the 1-hour ozone Clean Air Act reader is referred to EPA’s proposed on the relationship between the national reasonably available control technology rulemaking action. government and the states, or on the requirements for major sources of VOC distribution of power and II. What comments did EPA receive in and NO not covered by Control responsibilities among the various X response to its proposal? Techniques Guidelines. The intended levels of government, as specified in effect of this action is to approve control In response to EPA’s May 2, 2005, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, strategies which will result in emission proposed rulemaking action, EPA August 10, 1999). This action merely reductions that will help achieve received no adverse comments. approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the attainment of the national ambient air III. What is EPA’s conclusion? quality standard for ozone. relationship or the distribution of power EPA has evaluated New York’s and responsibilities established in the DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be submittal for consistency with the Act, Act. This rule also is not subject to effective August 21, 2006. EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of ADDRESSES: EPA has established a has determined that the revisions to Part Children from Environmental Health docket for this action under the Federal 214, ‘‘By-Product Coke Oven Batteries’’ Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, Docket Management System (FDMS) and Part 216, ‘‘Iron and/or Steel April 23, 1997), because it is not which replaces the Regional Materials Processes’’ of New York’s regulations economically significant. in EDOCKET (RME) docket system. The meet the VOC and NOX RACT ‘‘catch- In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s new FDMS is located at up’’ requirements under sections role is to approve state choices, www.regulations.gov and the docket ID 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act for non- provided that they meet the criteria of for this action is EPA–R02–OAR–2006– Control Techniques Guidelines major the Act. In this context, in the absence 0303. All documents in the docket are sources. Therefore, EPA is approving of a prior existing requirement for the listed in the FDMS index. Publicly revised Parts 214 and 216 into the State to use voluntary consensus available docket materials are available federally approved New York SIP. standards (VCS), EPA has no authority either electronically in FDMS or in hard to disapprove a SIP submission for copy at the Environmental Protection IV. Statutory and Executive Order failure to use VCS. It would thus be Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Reviews inconsistent with applicable law for Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, York, New York 10007–1866. Copies of 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is to use VCS in place of a SIP submission the documents relevant to this action not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and that otherwise satisfies the provisions of are also available for public inspection therefore is not subject to review by the the Act. Thus, the requirements of during normal business hours, by Office of Management and Budget. For section 12(d) of the National appointment at the Air and Radiation this reason, this action is also not Technology Transfer and Advancement Docket and Information Center, subject to Executive Order 13211, Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That apply. This rule does not impose an Room B–108, 1301 Constitution Significantly Affect Energy Supply, information collection burden under the Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; and the Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May provisions of the Paperwork Reduction New York State Department of 22, 2001). This action merely approves Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Environmental Conservation, Division state law as meeting federal The Congressional Review Act, 5 of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, requirements and imposes no additional U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Albany, New York 12233. requirements beyond those imposed by Business Regulatory Enforcement

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41163

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 8, 1994, by the New York State that before a rule may take effect, the Environmental protection, Air Department of Environmental agency promulgating the rule must pollution control, Incorporation by Conservation (NYSDEC), which submit a rule report, which includes a reference, Intergovernmental relations, consisted of amendments to Title 6 of copy of the rule, to each House of the Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting the New York Codes, Rules and Congress and to the Comptroller General and recordkeeping requirements, Regulations (NYCRR) Parts 214, of the United States. EPA will submit a Volatile organic compounds. ‘‘Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,’’ and report containing this rule and other 216, ‘‘Iron and/or Steel Processes.’’ required information to the U.S. Senate, Dated: June 23, 2006. (i) Incorporation by reference: the U.S. House of Representatives, and Alan J. Steinberg, the Comptroller General of the United Regional Administrator, Region 2. (A) Regulations Part 214, ‘‘Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,’’ and Part 216, States prior to publication of the rule in I Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code ‘‘Iron and/or Steel Processes’’ of Title 6 the Federal Register. A major rule of Federal Regulations is amended as of the New York Codes, Rules and cannot take effect until 60 days after it follows: is published in the Federal Register. Regulations (NYCRR), filed on August This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as PART 52—[AMENDED] 23, 1994, and effective on September 22, defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1994. I Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 1. The authority citation for part 52 (ii) Additional information: petitions for judicial review of this continues to read as follows: (A) Letter from New York State action must be filed in the United States Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Court of Appeals for the appropriate Department of Environmental circuit by September 18, 2006. Filing a Subpart HH—New York Conservation, dated March 1, 2006, petition for reconsideration by the identifying the level of NOX emissions Administrator of this final rule does not I 2. Section 52.1670 is amended by from generic sources located in New affect the finality of this rule for the adding new paragraph (c)(110) to read York State that are subject to Parts 214 purposes of judicial review nor does it as follows: and 216. extend the time within which a petition § 52.1670 Identification of plans. I 3. Section 52.1679 is amended by for judicial review may be filed, and revising the entries under Title 6 for shall not postpone the effectiveness of * * * * * (c) * * * Part 214 and Part 216 in the table to such rule or action. This action may not read as follows: be challenged later in proceedings to * * * * * enforce its requirements. (See section (110) Revisions to the State § 52.1679 EPA-approved New York State 307(b)(2).) Implementation Plan submitted on July regulations.

State effective Latest EPA New York State regulation date approval date Comments

Title 6:

******* Part 214, ‘‘Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries’’ ...... 9/22/94 7/20/06 [Insert FR page cita- tion].

******* Part 216, ‘‘Iron and/or Steel Processes’’ ...... 9/22/94 7/20/06 [Insert FR page cita- tion].

*******

[FR Doc. E6–11452 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] ACTION: Direct final rule. DATES: This direct final rule is effective BILLING CODE 6560–50–P on October 18, 2006 without further SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final notice unless EPA receives adverse action to amend the current regulations comment by August 21, 2006, or by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION governing the production and trade of September 5, 2006 if a hearing is AGENCY certain ozone-depleting substances to requested. If we receive adverse comment we will publish a timely 40 CFR Part 82 address issues concerning the export of previously imported material, heels, the withdrawal in the Federal Register exemption allowance petition process informing the public that this rule, or an [EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0130–FRL–8199–9] amendment paragraph or section of this for HCFC–141b for military and space rule, will not take effect. RIN 2060–AL90 vehicle applications, and the definition ADDRESSES: for ‘‘importer.’’ We are making these Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: minor adjustments to our regulations in OAR–2003–0130, by one of the Minor Amendments to the Regulations response to requests from the regulated following methods: Implementing the Allowance System community, to ensure equitable for Controlling HCFC Production, • www.regulations.gov: Follow the treatment of stakeholders, and to reduce Import and Export on-line instructions for submitting burden where the integrity of the comments. AGENCY: Environmental Protection requirements can still be sufficiently • E-mail: [email protected]. Agency [EPA]. maintained. • Fax: 202–566–1741.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:03 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41164 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

• Mail: Docket #, Air and Radiation as amended, the U.S. and other CFC—chlorofluorocarbon Docket and Information Center, U.S. industrialized countries that are Parties CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Environmental Protection Agency, Mail to the Protocol have agreed to limit EPA—Environmental Protection Agency code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., production and consumption of FDA—Food and Drug Administration NW., Washington, DC 20460. hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and FR—Federal Register • Hand Delivery: Docket #EPA–HQ– to phase out consumption in a step-wise HCFC—hydrochlorofluorocarbon OAR–2003–0130, Air and Radiation fashion over time, culminating in a NASA—National Aeronautics and Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution complete phaseout in 2030. Title VI of Space Administration Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 NODA—Notice of Data Availability 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Such (CAAA) authorizes EPA to promulgate NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking deliveries are only accepted during the regulations to manage the consumption ODP—ozone depletion potential Docket’s normal hours of operation, and and production of HCFCs until the total ODS—ozone-depleting substance special arrangements should be made phaseout in 2030. EPA promulgated Party—States and regional economic for deliveries of boxed information. final regulations establishing an integration organizations that have Instructions: Direct your comments to allowance tracking system for HCFCs on consented to be bound by the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2820). These Montreal Protocol on Substances that 0130. EPA’s policy is that all comments regulations were amended on June 17, Deplete the Ozone Layer received will be included in the public 2004 (69 FR 34024) to ensure U.S. Protocol—Montreal Protocol on docket without change and may be compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Substances that Deplete the Ozone made available online at This action amends aspects of the Layer www.regulations.gov, including any regulations that relate to exports of SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory personal information provided, unless previously imported material, the Enforcement Fairness Act the comment includes information import of HCFC heels, the HCFC–141b SNAP—Significant New Alternatives claimed to be Confidential Business exemption allowance petition process, Policy Information (CBI) or other information the definition of ‘‘importer,’’ and other UNEP—United Nations Environment whose disclosure is restricted by statute. aspects of the regulations. Programme Do not submit information that you EPA is publishing this rule without U.S.—United States. consider to be CBI or otherwise prior proposal because we view this as (3) Tips for Preparing Your Comments a non-controversial action and protected through www.regulations.gov When submitting comments, anticipate no adverse comment. or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web remember to: However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, • Identify the rulemaking by docket section of this Federal Register, we are which means EPA will not know your number and other identifying publishing a separate document that identity or contact information unless information (subject heading, Federal will serve as the proposal to amend the you provide it in the body of your Register date and page number). current regulations if we receive adverse comment. If you send an e-mail • Follow directions—The agency may comment. This direct final rule will be comment directly to EPA without going ask you to respond to specific questions effective on October 18, 2006 without through www.regulations.gov your e- or organize comments by referencing a further notice unless we receive adverse mail address will be automatically Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part comment by August 21, 2006, or by captured and included as part of the or section number. September 5, 2006 if a hearing is comment that is placed in the public • Explain why you agree or disagree; requested. If we receive adverse docket and made available on the suggest alternatives and substitute comment, we will publish a timely Internet. If you submit an electronic language for your requested changes. withdrawal in the Federal Register comment, EPA recommends that you • Describe any assumptions and informing the public that the rule, or include your name and other contact provide any technical information and/ particular provisions of the rule, will information in the body of your or data that you used. not take effect. We would address comment and with any disk or CD–ROM • If you estimate potential costs or public comments in any subsequent you submit. If EPA cannot read your burdens, explain how you arrived at final rule based on the proposed rule. comment due to technical difficulties your estimate in sufficient detail to We will not institute a second comment and cannot contact you for clarification, allow for it to be reproduced. EPA may not be able to consider your period on this action. Any parties • Provide specific examples to comment. Electronic files should avoid interested in commenting must do so at illustrate your concerns, and suggest the use of special characters, any form this time. alternatives. of encryption, and be free of any defects (2) Abbreviations and Acronyms Used • Explain your views as clearly as or viruses. For additional information in This Document possible, avoiding the use of profanity about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Act—Clean Air Act Amendments of or personal threats. Docket Center homepage at http:// • Make sure to submit your www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 1990 Article 2 countries—industrialized comments by the comment period FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: countries that are not parties deadline identified. Cindy Axinn Newberg, EPA, operating under paragraph 1 of Article Table of Contents Stratospheric Protection Division, Office 5 of the Montreal Protocol of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air Article 5 countries—developing I. Regulated Entities and Radiation (6205J), 1200 countries that satisfy certain II. Background Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., III. Direct Final Action conditions laid out in paragraph 1 of A. Exports of Previously Imported HCFCs Washington, DC 20460, (202) 343–9729, Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol [email protected]. B. Heels CAAA—Clean Air Act Amendments of C. HCFC–141b Exemption Allowance SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1) Under 1990 Petition Process the Montreal Protocol on Substances Cap—limitation in level of production D. Definition of Importer that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol), or consumption E. Minor Regulatory Corrections

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41165

1. Allowance Requirements for Class II E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism I. National Technology Transfer and Controlled Substances with Lower F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Advancement Act Ozone Depletion Potentials and Coordination With Indian Tribal J. Congressional Review Act 2. Removal of Class II Controlled Governments Substances From § 82.13(f)(2) G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of I. Regulated Entities IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Children From Environmental Health These minor amendments to the Planning and Review and Safety Risks HCFC allowance allocation system will H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That B. Paperwork Reduction Act affect the following categories: C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Significantly Affect Energy Supply, D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Distribution, or Use

Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of regulated entities

Chlorofluorocarbon gas manufacturing ...... 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturers; Dichlorofluoroethane manufacturers; Chlorodifluoroethane manufacturers. Chlorofluorocarbon gas importers ...... 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane importers; Dichlorofluoroethane importers; Chlorodifluoroethane importers. Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters ...... 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane exporters; Dichlorofluoroethane exporters; Chlorodifluoroethane exporters. Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing ...... 326140 3086 Plastics foam Products (Polystyrene Foam Products). Urethane and Other Foam Product (Except Poly- 326150 3086 Insulation and cushioning, foam plastics (except poly- styrene) Manufacturing. styrene) manufacturing.

This table is not intended to be In the Copenhagen Amendments, the consumption cap (2.8 percent of the exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Parties created a schedule with Party’s CFC consumption in 1989, plus for readers regarding entities likely to be graduated reductions and the eventual the Party’s HCFC consumption in 1989) regulated by this action. This table lists phaseout of the consumption of HCFCs. and the result of the same formula for the types of entities that EPA is now The schedule calls for a 35 percent production (2.8 percent of the Party’s aware potentially could be regulated by reduction of the cap on January 1, 2004, CFC production in 1989, plus the this action. Other types of entities not followed by a 65 percent reduction on Party’s HCFC production in 1989). This listed in this table could also be January 1, 2010, a 90 percent reduction formula results in a U.S. production cap affected. To determine whether your on January 1, 2015, a 99.5 percent of 15,537 ODP-weighted metric tons. reduction on January 1, 2020, and a total facility, company, business The U.S. ratified the Beijing phaseout on January 1, 2030. As a organization, or other entity is regulated Amendment on October 1, 2003. by this action, you should carefully signatory to the Copenhagen examine these regulations. If you have Amendments (the U.S. deposited its To implement the Protocol, as questions regarding the applicability of instrument of ratification on March 2, amended by the Copenhagen and this action to a particular entity, consult 1994), the U.S. must comply with this Beijing Amendments, EPA established the person listed in the FOR FURTHER phaseout schedule under the Protocol. an allowance system under Title VI of INFORMATION CONTACT section. In 1992, EPA received petitions from the CAAA to ensure that U.S. environmental groups and industry production and consumption of HCFCs II. Background asking the Agency to implement the would continue to stay under the phaseout by eliminating the most ozone- production cap and conform to the In 1990, as part of a resolution on depleting substances first. Based on the consumption phaseout steps. This ozone-depleting substances, the Parties available data at the time, EPA believed to the Protocol identified allowance system was published in the that the U.S. could meet, and possibly Federal Register on January 21, 2003 hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) as exceed, the Protocol schedule through a transitional substitutes for (68 FR 2820). The HCFC allowance chemical-by-chemical phaseout. In system is part of EPA’s program to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other 1993, as authorized by sections 605 and phase out the production and more destructive ozone-depleting 606 of the CAAA, EPA established a consumption, and restrict the use, of substances (ODSs). In 1992, the Parties regulatory phaseout schedule that links negotiated amendments to the Protocol the phaseout of particular HCFCs to the HCFCs in accordance with section 605 (the ‘‘Copenhagen Amendments’’) that phaseout steps under the Protocol (58 of the CAAA. EPA has accelerated created a detailed phaseout schedule for FR 65018, December 10, 1993; 58 FR certain aspects of the schedule HCFCs, with a cap on consumption for 15014, March 18, 1993). For example, contained in section 605 as authorized Article 2 (industrialized) countries like under that schedule, HCFC–141b under section 606 of the CAAA. the U.S. The Protocol defines production and import ceased on III. Direct Final Action consumption as production plus January 1, 2003, apart from a few minor imports minus exports. The exceptions. EPA is taking direct final action to consumption cap is derived from the In 1999, the Parties negotiated another promulgate various minor amendments formula of 2.8 percent of the Party’s CFC amendment to the Protocol (the ‘‘Beijing to the existing regulations implementing consumption in 1989, plus the Party’s Amendment’’), where they agreed to a the HCFC phaseout. The following consumption of HCFCs in 1989. Based cap on HCFC production for sections discuss these changes on this formula, the consumption cap industrialized countries, effective individually and specifically. for the U.S. is 15,240 ODP-weighted January 1, 2004. This cap was derived metric tons, effective January 1, 1996. from the average of the Party’s

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41166 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

A. Exports of Previously Imported future shipment, or be recovered for should apply to all sizes and types of HCFCs transformation, destruction or a non-emissive containers and whether annual reports purpose. In accordance with 40 CFR 82.20(a), would be sufficient. EPA specifically producers of class II controlled As part of a larger discussion reviewed information regarding substances can request a ‘‘refund’’ of concerning heels in the January 21, 2003 business practices for managing heels consumption allowances by submitting final rule (68 FR 2843), EPA received from rail cars, tank trucks, ISO tanks, documentation demonstrating the and addressed comments concerning 2,000-lb cylinders, and 125-lb cylinders. export of controlled substances and whether the definition of heels applies Based on the information that EPA has complying with the recordkeeping and to small containers or only to bulk reviewed, it seems that generally reporting requirements of § 82.24. This shipments in larger containers, smaller containers, including 2,000-lb provision, as it currently is including but not limited to, rail cars. cylinders and 125-lb cylinders, are promulgated, only explicitly addresses The comments received during the presumed empty and then refilled. The the ‘‘refund’’ of consumption public comment period were placed in assumptions and practices for smaller allowances to producers of class II public docket A–98–33 which has been containers differ from those for larger substances and does not address incorporated into OAR–2003–0130. In containers, such as rail cars, which are scenarios concerning importers of the January 21, 2003 final rule, EPA routinely weighed, after which any controlled substances choosing to clarified that the definition of heel did residual controlled substance that is still request a similar refund. The current apply to small containers. within the rail car is accounted. After applicable provisions refer solely to Based on a review of these comments extensive consideration, EPA stated in a class II controlled substances produced and subsequent information brought to letter contained in the docket for this in the United States. EPA has received EPA’s attention, EPA no longer believes rulemaking that ‘‘EPA has decided to requests from importers seeking to it is necessary to require that owners or reduce the reporting burden by export previously imported class II operators of small containers and modifying the requirements for cylinders comply with the controlled substances and obtain reporting of heels. These modifications recordkeeping and reporting provisions. refunds of consumption allowances in a will follow the normal rulemaking However, EPA currently does not limit manner similar to companies that have process * * * [and] will include a the applicability of either the definition produced class II substances. These change in frequency of reporting and a of heels or the recordkeeping and importers are concerned that domestic limit in the types of containers subject reporting provisions at § 82.24(f) to to reporting.’’ 2 manufacturers have inadvertently been Therefore, consistent larger bulk shipments. Neither the with previous communication, through given an unfair advantage over definition of heels nor the this action, EPA is revising the importers. recordkeeping and reporting EPA does not believe there was any recordkeeping and reporting burden by requirements refers to the size or type of reason for limiting the refund of modifying the requirements for heels. the containers. The recordkeeping and EPA is limiting the type of containers consumption allowances solely to reporting requirements state that any affected by the requirements and companies that produce class II person who brings into the U.S. a therefore subject to the recordkeeping controlled substances in the United container with a heel must indicate on and reporting requirements for heels. States. EPA notes that the current a bill of lading that the class II EPA is amending § 82.24(f) to state that codified language does not prohibit the controlled substance is a heel. Further, any person who brings into the U.S. rail refund of consumption allowances to the person is required to report cars, tank trucks, and ISO tanks importers, but instead fails to address quarterly the quantity in kilograms containing a class II controlled that particular scenario while brought into the U.S. and certify that the substance that is a heel as defined in addressing the scenario of domestically quantity is truly a heel by certifying it §82.3, must comply with recordkeeping manufactured class II controlled is no more than 10 percent the total and reporting requirements at § 82.24(f). substances. EPA has made a practice of volume of the container. In addition, the EPA has determined that the considering importers’ requests for person must certify that the heel will recordkeeping and reporting refunds of consumption allowances either remain in the container and be requirements are unnecessary for consistently with requests from included in a future shipment, be 1 smaller containers such as 2,000-lb and producers. To reflect this practice of recovered and transformed, be 125-lb cylinders because it would be equal treatment, EPA is amending recovered and destroyed, or be impractical to recover heels from these § 82.20(a) to refer to class II controlled recovered for a non-emissive use. Any smaller containers for emissive use. substances that are both produced in person who brings a container with a Such heels would be included in future and imported into the United States. heel into the U.S. also must report on shipments with or without a EPA is also amending §§ 82.20(a)(1)(x) the final disposition of each shipment certification. For the same reason, it is and 82.20(a)(2)(i)(B) to refer to importers within 45 days of the end of the control unnecessary to require a report on the as well as producers. period. final disposition of such heels. B. Heels Since the promulgation of the January EPA is also changing the reporting 21, 2003 final rule, EPA has received frequency for heels that are subject to As currently defined at § 82.3, a Heel new and compelling information is: the recordkeeping and reporting regarding the general business practices requirements. Section 82.24(f)(2) The amount of a controlled substance that for handling heels and also information currently requires quarterly reports of remains in a container after it is discharged concerning which containers are the quantity of heels brought into the or off-loaded (that is no more than ten generally considered to carry heels of U.S. and certification that the heels are percent of the volume of the container) and sufficient size to necessitate that the person owning or operating the truly heels, and that they will either container certifies the residual amount will recordkeeping and reporting. In remain in the container to be included remain the container and be included in a particular, EPA received and reviewed in a future shipment, be recovered and information from multiple sources 1 Docket EPA–OAR 2003–0130 contains letters regarding whether the heel 2 Letter signed by Drusilla Hufford, Director, issued by EPA. recordkeeping and reporting (§ 82.24(f)) Global Programs Division, May 10, 2004.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41167

transformed, be recovered and required to submit annual reports for petitions for HCFC–141b from spray destroyed, or be recovered for a non- heels. foam formulators for the 2005 control emissive use. In addition, under period and does not expect to receive C. HCFC–141b Exemption Allowance § 82.24(f)(3), any person who brings a any in the future. Petition Process container with a heel into the U.S. must Since 2003, EPA has received and report on the final disposition of each The final rule published on January approved petitions for space vehicle and shipment within 45 days of the end of 21, 2003 (68 FR 2820) established the defense applications (the approval the control period—thus on an annual HCFC–141b exemption allowance letters can be found in Air Docket basis. Since these regulations took effect petition process for all formulators 3 of A–98–33, IV–G–26–34). As in the EPA has received new and compelling HCFC–141b. The July 20, 2001 notice of comments on the July 20, 2001, NPRM, information from several sources proposed rulemaking (66 FR 38063) information in petitions from the regarding the practical implementation proposed a petition process solely for National Aeronautics and Space of these requirements. After reviewing space vehicle 4 and defense applications Administration (NASA) and Department information with regard to the requiring new production of HCFC– of Defense (DOD) contractors (including management of heels, EPA has 141b after 2003. In response to contractors for the U.S. Air Force and concluded that decreasing the reporting comments received from spray foam the U.S. Department of the Navy) frequency will lessen the burden to the formulators, the final rule opened this suggests that specific foam applications regulated community while still process up to all formulators of HCFC– will continue to require new production maintaining the integrity of the 141b. At the time of the final rule, those of HCFC–141b due to their highly allowance system. By changing the spray foam formulators, citing technical specialized technical nature and the regulations to require a single annual constraints with alternatives to HCFC– unavailability of qualified alternatives. report, EPA is eliminating the need for 141b, suggested that those constraints Depending on the length and/or the four separate quarterly reports followed could impede their transition from technical requirements of the by an annual report. Furthermore, EPA HCFC–141b to non-ODS alternatives. applications, those petitioners expect to is establishing the same date for the Two commenters recommended that require new production of HCFC–141b annual report requirements under EPA allow any entity to petition the until at least 2009, if not until 2015, paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) to permit Agency for HCFC–141b allowances when use of class II controlled companies to file this information beyond January 1, 2003. EPA could substances (which include HCFC–141b) together, thus lessening the overall then, on a case-by-case basis, evaluate will be largely prohibited in accordance the petitioner’s assertions that no viable 5 regulatory burden. with section 605 of the Clean Air Act . alternatives are available to meet the EPA is eliminating the requirement EPA is also amending the definition needs of that specific petitioner. As that space vehicle and defense entities of Heel at § 82.3, to now read that a Heel stated above, EPA agreed with those with previously approved HCFC–141b is: commenters and established a petition exemptions submit an annual renewal The amount of a controlled substance that process for all formulators of HCFC– petition for HCFC–141b exemption remains in a container after it is discharged 141b to provide relief to any entity that allowances as long as the needed or off-loaded (that is no more than ten did not have access to HCFC–141b amounts do not increase significantly. percent of the volume of the container). while it was developing alternatives. The Agency has sufficient information Since the petition process was EPA believes it is necessary to amend from the petitioners mentioned above established in 2003, the majority of the the definition to decouple the definition whose requests were approved initial petitioners (spray foam of a Heel from the recordkeeping and regarding the quantities of HCFC–141b formulators) achieved significant reporting requirements. required, the technical constraints progress in their transition to associated with alternatives, and the EPA is amending the requirements so alternatives. Most firms now market scope of the projects/applications that companies that will continue to be foam systems containing non-ODS potentially employing HCFC–141b until subject to the provisions will report the alternatives. Acknowledging this 2015 (see the documents cited above same information currently required progress, in a separate but related from A–98–33 as well as IV–D–12, IV– under § 82.24(f) and in particular, the rulemaking EPA published a final rule D–16 and IV-D–28). Because of this, it information required under paragraphs on September 30, 2004, stating that is reasonable to eliminate the (f)(2) and (f)(3) on an annual basis, under the Significant New Alternatives requirement to submit annual petitions within 30 days after the end of the Policy (SNAP) program, HCFC–141b for space vehicle and defense control period, rather than reporting the would be unacceptable for use as a foam applications under § 82.16(h), while information required under (f)(2) on a blowing agent starting January 1, 2005, retaining the petition process for new quarterly basis and information required with some minor exceptions (69 FR petitioners who believe they meet the under (f)(3) on an annual basis. EPA is 58269). EPA did not receive any criteria for an exemption, and for those modifying the date of submission of the instances where an entity’s space annual report from 45 days after the end 3 According to 40 CFR 82.3, a formulator is an vehicle or defense needs will exceed of the control period to 30 days after the entity that distributes a class II controlled substance that entity’s previously approved end of the control period to be or blends of a class II controlled substance to persons who use the controlled substance for a amount by greater than ten percent. If consistent with other annual reporting specific application identified in the formulator’s requirements required under § 82.24. petition for HCFC–141b exemption allowances. 5 Section 605(a) of the Clean Air Act states that 4 Section 82.3 defines a space vehicle as a ‘‘man- EPA believes a consistent requirement ‘‘Effective January 1, 2015, it shall be unlawful for made device, either manned or unmanned, will ease the burden to those that must any person to introduce into interstate commerce or designed for operation beyond earth’s atmosphere. submit annual reports. EPA believes This definition includes integral equipment such as use any class II substance unless such substance— that the removal of the quarterly models, mock-ups, prototypes, molds, jigs, tooling, (1) Has been used, recovered, and recycled; reporting requirements and the change hardware jackets, and test coupons. Also included (2) Is used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in the production of other to 30 days after the end of the control is auxiliary equipment associated with tests, transport, and storage, which through chemicals; or period will result in a net reduction of contamination can compromise the space vehicle (3) Is used as a refrigerant in appliances burden to the regulated entities that are performance.’’ manufactured prior to January 1, 2020.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41168 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the entity’s needs exceed that threshold, product development to be within the clarifying ‘‘importer of record’’ better then the entity must submit a new scope of this direct final rule. defines the universe of those that could petition in accordance with the be considered to be the ‘‘importer’’ of D. Definition of Importer requirements at § 82.16(h)(1). Given the controlled substances. relatively small quantities of HCFC– The current definition of ‘‘importer’’ E. Minor Regulatory Corrections 141b that have been approved on an at § 82.3, as published in the Federal annual basis under the exemption Register on August 4, 1998 (63 FR 1. Allowance Requirements for Class II program, ten percent represents an 41625), reads: Substances With Lower Ozone extremely small fraction of the HCFC– Importer means the importer of record Depleting Potentials 141b baseline (less than 0.01 percent). listed on U.S. Customs Service forms for The regulations published on January In order to effectively manage and imported controlled substances, used controlled substances or controlled products. 21, 2003 (68 FR 2820) establish an address U.S. space vehicle and defense allowance system for class II controlled needs, the Agency requests that any In the August 4, 1998 Federal Register substances. The regulations include users of HCFC–141b in those notice, EPA stated that it was mechanisms for distribution and applications that have not previously simplifying the definition of ‘‘importer’’ tracking of allowances for HCFC–22, petitioned for HCFC–141b exemption ‘‘for enforcement purposes’’ and that HCFC–142b, and HCFC–141b. EPA allowances but that plan to seek new work with an inter-agency taskforce of recognizes there are many other class II production of HCFC–141b in 2007 and other federal agencies to enforce against controlled substances that are subject to beyond under this provision notify EPA the illegal import of banned class I regulations promulgated under 40 CFR of their application, technical controlled substances was a factor in the part 82. However, at this time constraints, and required quantities of decision to amend the definition. EPA manufacturers, importers and exporters HCFC–141b. We further clarify that the was responding to members of the of these other class II controlled entity’s previously approved amount, taskforce that had ‘‘discovered substances, including but not limited to for the purposes of determining an difficulties in working with the HCFC–225ca and HCFC–252, are not amount that is ten percent greater, refers definition of importer listed in the May required to hold allowances to produce, solely to amounts for which the entity 10, 1995 final rule (60 FR 24988) in import, or export these substances. The did submit a petition in accordance building cases against illegal importers reasons for this appear in the preamble with § 82.16(h)(1)–(4). due to ambiguities about who ultimately to the January 21, 2003 rule (68 FR Furthermore, in order to ensure that is responsible.’’ In an effort to eliminate 2823). When EPA apportions baseline the regulations continue to conform to ambiguity EPA promulgated the production and consumption section 603 of the Clean Air Act and to definition above amending the May 10, allowances for these other class II monitor U.S. compliance with the 1995, definition. However, as a practical controlled substances, EPA intends to Montreal Protocol production and matter, given the enforcement also establish a process under which the consumption caps, EPA will maintain experience since the promulgation of Agency would approve petitions for the reporting and recordkeeping the 1998 definition above, EPA believes import of used class II controlled requirements as detailed in § 82.24. it is better to return to the more substances, similar to the petition These include the requirement in encompassing previous definition, process that currently exists for those § 82.24(g)(1) that entities allocated modified to indicate that the importer of class II controlled substances for which HCFC–141b exemption allowances record is, as stated in the 1998 baseline production and consumption report biannually the quantity of HCFC– definition, the person listed on U.S. allowances have been apportioned. 141b that was received as well as the Customs documentation. Therefore, As currently written, the prohibitions requirements in § 82.24(b)(1)(xi) and through this action, EPA is on production and import at § 82.15(a) § 82.24(c)(1)(xi) that producers and promulgating a revised definition for and (b) do not specifically limit importers report for each quarter the ‘‘importer’’ that is based on the May 10, themselves to those class II controlled quantity of HCFC–141b that was 1995, definition with clarifying substances for which allowances have produced and/or imported for these language regarding what is meant by been distributed. While restricting trade exempted applications. ‘‘importer of record.’’ With this change, in these other HCFCs was not the intent In 2005, EPA also received and the ‘‘importer’’ of a controlled substance of the January 21, 2003, final rule, and approved a petition for HCFC–141b includes, but is not limited to, the the allowance requirements have not exemption allowances where the HCFC– ‘‘importer of record.’’ The revised been interpreted by EPA to extend to 141b was to be used for baseline definition will read: these other class II substances, EPA is comparison in a laboratory during Any person who imports a controlled concerned that it is possible for such an product development for HCFC–141b substance or a controlled product into the interpretation to be made. Therefore, foam for comparative analysis of all new United States. ‘‘Importer’’ includes the through this action, EPA is amending alternative formulations. If EPA person primarily liable for the payment of the affected paragraphs in § 82.15 to develops a separate proposal to address any duties on the merchandise or an clarify that the prohibitions apply only continued production of HCFC–141b for authorized agent acting on his or her behalf. to those class II controlled substances this type of laboratory and product The term also includes, as appropriate: (1) The consignee; for which EPA has distributed development use, as part of that (2) The importer of record (listed on U.S. production and consumption proposed rulemaking, EPA will request Customs Service forms for imported allowances. and consider comments concerning the controlled substances, used controlled 2. Removal of Class II Controlled potential need for ongoing exemption substances or controlled products); allowances for comparative analysis. (3) The actual owner; or Substances From § 82.13(f)(2) Since this action pertains only to use of (4) The transferee, if the right to draw Prior to the promulgation of the HCFC–141b for space vehicle and merchandise in a bonded warehouse has January 21, 2003 requirements for military applications, EPA will not been transferred. recordkeeping and reporting for class II consider comments on use of HCFC– Returning to the May 10, 1995, substances at § 82.24 (68 FR 2820), EPA 141b for comparative analysis during definition with the additional text regulations already contained a select

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41169

number of requirements for class II environment, public health or safety, or systems for the purposes of collecting, recordkeeping and reporting at § 82.13. State, local, or tribal government or validating, and verifying information, As a result of the reorganization of the communities; processing and maintaining recordkeeping and reporting (2) Create a serious inconsistency or information, and disclosing and requirements that occurred in the otherwise interfere with an action taken providing information; adjust the January 21, 2003 rulemaking, § 82.13 or planned by another agency; existing ways to comply with any generally houses the recordkeeping and (3) Mmaterially alter the budgetary previously applicable instructions and reporting requirements for class I impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, requirements; train personnel to be able substances while § 82.24 houses the or loan programs or the rights and to respond to a collection of recordkeeping and reporting obligations of recipients thereof; or information; search data sources; requirements for class II substances. The (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues complete and review the collection of January 21, 2003 rulemaking moved arising out of legal mandates, the information; and transmit or otherwise most of the recordkeeping and reporting President’s priorities, or the principles disclose the information. An agency provisions pertaining to class II set forth in the Executive Order. may not conduct or sponsor, and a substances from § 82.13 to § 82.24, and This rule is not a ‘‘significant person is not required to respond to a established additional recordkeeping regulatory action’’ within the meaning collection of information unless it and reporting requirements specifically of the Executive Order. displays a currently valid OMB control for the class II allowance system at number. The OMB control numbers for § 82.24. Through an oversight, however, B. Paperwork Reduction Act EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed § 82.13(f)(2), which is a recordkeeping This action includes only minor in 40 CFR part 9. provision for producers, continued to changes in the information collection C. Regulatory Flexibility Act refer to class II substances. The burden. While some minor additional recordkeeping provisions at requirements exist, EPA is relieving the The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) § 82.24(b)(2) render the provisions industry of other burdens and generally requires an agency to prepare concerning class II substances at streamlining requirements. The Office of a regulatory flexibility analysis of any § 82.13(f)(2) duplicative. Therefore, this Management and Budget (OMB) has rule subject to notice and comment action removes class II substances from previously approved the information rulemaking requirements under the § 82.13(f)(2). collection requirements contained in the Administrative Procedure Act or any IV. Statutory and Executive Order existing regulations under the other statute unless the agency certifies Reviews provisions of the Paperwork Reduction that the rule will not have a significant Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has economic impact on a substantial A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory assigned OMB control number 2060– number of small entities. Small entities Planning and Review 0498 (EPA ICR No. 2014.02). A copy of include small businesses, small Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR the OMB approved Information organizations, and small governmental 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency Collection Request (ICR) may be jurisdictions. must determine whether this regulatory obtained from The Collection Strategies For purposes of assessing the impacts action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore Division; U.S. Environmental Protection of today’s rule on small entities, small subject to OMB review and the Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania entity is defined as: (1) A small business requirements of the Executive Order. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by as defined by the NAICS codes below The Order defines a ‘‘significant’’ calling (202) 566–1672. Burden means (2) a small governmental jurisdiction regulatory action as one that is likely to the total time, effort, or financial that is a government of a city, county, result in a rule that may: resources expended by persons to town, school district or special district (1) Have an annual effect on the generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or with a population of less than 50,000; economy of $100 million or more, or provide information to or for a Federal and (3) a small organization that is any adversely affect in a material way the agency. This includes the time needed not-for-profit enterprise which is economy, a sector of the economy, to review instructions; develop, acquire, independently owned and operated and productivity, competition, jobs, the install, and utilize technology and is not dominant in its field.

NAICS small business size standard Category NAICS code SIC code (in number of employees or millions of dollars)

1. Chemical and Allied Products, NEC ...... 424690 5169 100 2. Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters ...... 325120 2869 100

After considering the economic this rule are considered small as defined and tribal government and the private impacts of today’s direct final rule on by the size standards listed above. sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, small entities, I certify that this action EPA generally must prepare a written D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act will not have a significant economic statement, including a cost-benefit impact on a substantial number of small Title II of the Unfunded Mandates analysis, for proposed and final rules entities. This direct final rule will not Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may impose any requirements on small Law 104–4, establishes requirements for result in expenditures by State, local entities. None of the entities affected by Federal agencies to assess the effects of and tribal governments, in the aggregate, their regulatory actions on State, local or by the private sector, of $100 million

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41170 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

or more in any one year. If a written This direct final rule does not have studies describe the effects on children statement is required under section 202, federalism implications. It will not have of excessive exposure to UV radiation: section 205 of the UMRA generally substantial direct effects on the States, (1) Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. requires EPA to identify and consider a on the relationship between the national ‘‘At what age do sunburn episodes play reasonable number of regulatory government and the States, or on the a crucial role for the development of alternatives and adopt the least costly, distribution of power and malignant melanoma,’’ Eur J Cancer most cost-effective or least burdensome responsibilities among the various 1994: 30A: 1647–54; (2) Elwood JM alternative that achieves the objectives levels of government, as specified in Japson J. ‘‘Melanoma and sun exposure: of the rule, unless the Agency explains Executive Order 13132. Today’s action an overview of published studies,’’ Int why this alternative is not selected or is expected to primarily affect J Cancer 1997; 73:198–203; (3) the selection of this alternative is producers, importers and exporters of Armstrong BK, ‘‘Melanoma: childhood inconsistent with law. HCFCs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 or lifelong sun exposure,’’ In: Grobb JJ, Section 203 of the UMRA requires the does not apply to this rule. Stern RS Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, Agency to establish a plan for obtaining eds. ‘‘Epidemiology, causes and F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation input from and informing, educating, prevention of skin diseases,’’ 1st ed. and Coordination With Indian Tribal and advising any small governments London, England: Blackwell Science, Governments that may be significantly or uniquely 1997: 63–6; (4) Whieman D., Green A. affected by the rule. Section 204 of the Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Melanoma and Sunburn,’’ Cancer UMRA requires the Agency to develop ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Causes Control, 1994: 5:564–72; (5) a process to allow elected state, local, Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Heenan, PJ. ‘‘Does intermittent sun and tribal government officials to 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A provide input in the development of any to develop an accountable process to case control study in Western proposal containing a significant ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Australia,’’ Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 489– Federal intergovernmental mandate. tribal officials in the development of 94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB, Bajdik, EPA has determined that this direct regulatory policies that have tribal CD, et al. ‘‘Sunlight exposure, final rule does not contain a Federal implications.’’ This rule does not have pigmentary factors, and risk of mandate that may result in expenditures tribal implications, as specified in nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell of $100 million or more by State, local Executive Order 13175. Today’s direct carcinoma.’’ Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: and tribal governments, in the aggregate, final rule does not significantly or 157–63; (7) Armstrong, DK. ‘‘How sun or by the private sector, in any one year. uniquely affect the communities of exposure causes skin cancer: an Viewed as a whole, all of today’s Indian tribal governments. It does not epidemiological perspective,’’ amendments do not create a Federal impose any enforceable duties on Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89– mandate resulting in costs of $100 communities of Indian tribal 116. million or more in any one year for governments. Thus, Executive Order This direct final rule is making minor State, local and tribal governments, in 13175 does not apply to this rule. changes to the existing regulatory the aggregate, or for the private sector. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of regime for the class II controlled Thus, today’s direct final rule is not Children From Environmental Health & substances. Theses minor changes are subject to the requirements of sections Safety Risks not expected to increase the impacts on 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also children’s health from stratospheric determined that this rule contains no Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of ozone depletion. regulatory requirements that might Children from Environmental Health significantly or uniquely affect small Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That governments; therefore, EPA is not April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: Significantly Affect Energy Supply, required to develop a plan with regard (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically Distribution, or Use to small governments under section 203. significant’’ as defined under Executive This rule is not subject to Executive Finally, because this direct final rule Order 12866, and (2) concerns an Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning does not contain a significant environmental health or safety risk that Regulations That Significantly Affect intergovernmental mandate, the Agency EPA has reason to believe may have a Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 is not required to develop a process to disproportionate effect on children. If F.R. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is obtain input from elected state, local, the regulatory action meets both criteria, not a significant regulatory action under and tribal officials under section 204. the Agency must evaluate the Executive Order 12866. environmental health or safety effects of E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism the planned rule on children, and I. The National Technology Transfer Executive Order 13132, entitled explain why the planned regulation is and Advancement Act ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, preferable to other potentially effective Section 12(d) of the National 1999), requires EPA to develop an and reasonably feasible alternatives Technology Transfer and Advancement accountable process to ensure considered by the Agency. Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State While this direct final rule is not 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 and local officials in the development of subject to the Executive Order because note) directs EPA to use voluntary regulatory policies that have federalism it is not economically significant as consensus standards in its regulatory implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have defined in E.O. 12866, we nonetheless activities unless to do so would be federalism implications’’ is defined in have reason to believe that the inconsistent with applicable law or the Executive Order to include environmental health or safety risk otherwise impractical. Voluntary regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct addressed by the underlying regulations consensus standards are technical effects on the States, on the relationship may have a disproportionate effect on standards (e.g., materials specifications, between the national government and children. Depletion of stratospheric test methods, sampling procedures, and the States, or on the distribution of ozone results in greater transmission of business practices) that are developed or power and responsibilities among the the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation to adopted by voluntary consensus various levels of government.’’ the earth’s surface. The following standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41171

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, loaded (that is no more than ten percent transhipments, heels or used class II explanations when the Agency decides of the volume of the container). controlled substances) for which EPA not to use available and applicable * * * * * has apportioned baseline production voluntary consensus standards. This Importer means any person who and consumption allowances , in excess rulemaking does not involve technical imports a controlled substance or a of the quantity of unexpended standards. Therefore, EPA did not controlled product into the United consumption allowances, or conferred consider the use of any voluntary States. ‘‘Importer’’ includes the person unexpended HCFC–141b exemption consensus standards. primarily liable for the payment of any allowances held by that person under the authority of this subpart at that time J. Congressional Review Act duties on the merchandise or an authorized agent acting on his or her in that control period, unless the The Congressional Review Act, 5 behalf. The term also includes, as substances are for use in a process U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small appropriate: resulting in their transformation or their Business Regulatory Enforcement (1) The consignee; destruction, or unless they are produced Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides (2) The importer of record (listed on using an exemption granted in that before a rule may take effect, the U.S. Customs Service forms for paragraph (f) of this section. Every agency promulgating the rule must imported controlled substances, used kilogram of excess import constitutes a submit a rule report, which includes a controlled substances or controlled separate violation of this subpart. copy of the rule, to each House of the products); (2) Effective January 21, 2003, no Congress and to the Comptroller General (3) The actual owner; or person may import, at any time in any of the United States. EPA will submit a (4) The transferee, if the right to draw control period, a used class II controlled report containing this rule and other merchandise in a bonded warehouse has substance for which EPA has required information to the U.S. Senate, been transferred. apportioned baseline production and the U.S. House of Representatives, and * * * * * consumption allowances, without the Comptroller General of the United I 3. Amend § 82.13 by revising having submitted a petition to the States prior to publication of the rule in paragraph (f)(2) introductory text to read Administrator and received a non- the Federal Register. A major rule as follows: objection notice in accordance with cannot take effect until 60 days after it § 82.24(c)(3) and (4). A person issued a is published in the Federal Register. § 82.13 Recordkeeping and reporting non-objection notice for the import of an This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as requirements for class I controlled individual shipment of used class II defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule substances. controlled substances may not transfer will be effective October 18, 2006. * * * * * or confer the right to import, and may (f) * * * not import any more than the exact List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 (2) Every producer of a class I quantity (in kilograms) of the used class Environmental protection, controlled substance during a control II controlled substance stated in the Administrative practice and procedure, period must maintain the following non-objection notice. Every kilogram of Air pollution control, Chemicals, records: import of used class II controlled Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, * * * * * substance in excess of the quantity Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, I 4. Amend § 82.15 by revising stated in the non-objection notice issued Reporting and recordkeeping paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to read as by the Administrator in accordance with requirements. follows: § 82.24(c)(3) and (4) constitutes a separate violation of this subpart. Dated: July 13, 2006. § 82.15 Prohibitions for class II controlled * * * * * Stephen L. Johnson, substances. I Administrator. 5. Amend § 82.16 by revising (a) Production. (1) Effective January paragraph (h)(1) introductory text and I For the reasons stated in the preamble, 21, 2003, no person may produce class by adding paragraphs (h)(7) and (h)(8) to 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows: II controlled substances for which EPA read as follows: has apportioned baseline production PART 82—PROTECTION OF and consumption allowances, in excess § 82.16 Phaseout schedule of class II STRATOSPHERIC OZONE of the quantity of unexpended controlled substances. production allowances, unexpended * * * * * I 1. The authority citation for part 82 Article 5 allowances, unexpended (h) * * * continues to read as follows: export production allowances, or (1) Effective January 21, 2003, a Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671– conferred unexpended HCFC–141b formulator of HCFC–141b, an agency, 7671q. exemption allowances held by that department, or instrumentality of the person for that substance under the U.S., or a non-governmental space Subpart A—Production and authority of this subpart at that time in vehicle entity, may petition EPA for Consumption Controls that control period, unless the HCFC–141b exemption allowances for substances are transformed or destroyed the production or import of HCFC–141b I 2. Amend § 82.3 by revising the domestically or by a person of another after the phaseout date, in accordance definitions of ‘‘Heel’’ and ‘‘Importer’’ to Party, or unless they are produced using with this section. Except as provided in read as follows: an exemption granted in paragraph (f) of paragraphs (h)(4) and (7) of this section, this section. Every kilogram of excess a petitioner must submit the following § 82.3 Definitions for class I and class II production constitutes a separate information to the Director of EPA’s controlled substances. violation of this subpart. Office of Atmospheric Programs no later * * * * * * * * * * than April 21, 2003, for the 2003 control Heel means the amount of a (b) Import. (1) Effective January 21, period; and, for any subsequent control controlled substance that remains in a 2003, no person may import class II period, no later than October 31st of the container after it is discharged or off- controlled substances (other than year preceding the control period for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41172 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

which the HCFC–141b exemption I a. Revise paragraphs (c)(1)(vi), DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND allowances are requested: (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3) introductory text. SECURITY * * * * * I b. Revise paragraphs (f) introductory Federal Emergency Management (7) A formulator for, or an agency, text, (f)(1), (f)(2) introductory text, and Agency department, or instrumentality of the (f)(3). U.S., or a non-governmental space vehicle entity that has previously § 82.24 Recordkeeping and reporting 44 CFR Part 64 petitioned for and been granted HCFC– requirements for class II controlled [Docket No. FEMA–7786] 141b exemption allowances under substances. paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this * * * * * List of Communities Eligible for the section is granted, on January 1 of each Sale of Flood Insurance control period beginning January 1, (c) * * * 2007, HCFC–141b exemption (1) * * * AGENCY: Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency allowances equivalent to 10% more (vi) For substances for which EPA has than the highest amount previously (FEMA), Department of Homeland apportioned baseline production and Security. granted under paragraphs (h)(1) through consumption allowances, the importer’s ACTION: Final rule. (4) of this section to that petitioner for total sum of expended and unexpended space vehicle uses or defense consumption allowances by chemical as applications. SUMMARY: This rule identifies (8) A formulator for, or an agency, of the end of that quarter; communities that are participating and department, or instrumentality of the * * * * * suspended from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These U.S.; or a non-governmental space (2) * * * vehicle entity that has previously communities have applied to the (ii) The quantity (in kilograms) of petitioned for and been granted HCFC– program and have agreed to enact 141b exemption allowances under those class II controlled substances certain floodplain management paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this imported that are used and the measures. The communities’ section but now seeks to obtain information provided with the petition participation in the program authorizes allowances in addition to those granted where a petition is required under the sale of flood insurance to owners of under paragraph (h)(7) of this section paragraph (c)(3) of this section; properties located in the communities must submit a new petition in * * * * * listed below. DATES: accordance with paragraph (h)(1) of this (3) Petition to import used class II Effective Dates: The effective date for each community is listed in the section. controlled substances and I fourth column of the following tables. 6. Amend § 82.20 by revising transhipment-Importers. For each paragraphs (a) introductory text, individual shipment over 5 pounds of a ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for (a)(1)(x), and (a)(2)(i)(B) to read as used class II controlled substance as properties located in the communities follows: listed below can be obtained from any defined in § 82.3 for which EPA has licensed property insurance agent or apportioned baseline production and § 82.20 Availability of consumption broker serving the eligible community allowances in addition to baseline consumption allowances, an importer consumption allowances for class II or from the NFIP by calling 1–800–638– must submit directly to the 6620. controlled substances. Administrator, at least 40 working days FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: (a) A person may obtain at any time before the shipment is to leave the William H. Lesser, Mitigation Division, during the control period, in accordance foreign port of export, the following 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC with the provisions of this section, information in a petition: consumption allowances equivalent to 20472, (202) 646–2807. the quantity of class II controlled * * * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP substances that the person exported (f) Heels-Recordkeeping and enables property owners to purchase from the U.S. and its territories to a reporting. Any person who brings into flood insurance that is generally not foreign state, in accordance with this the U.S. a rail car, tank truck, or ISO otherwise available. In return, section, when that quantity of class II tank containing a heel, as defined in communities agree to adopt and controlled substance was produced in § 82.3, of class II controlled substances, implement local floodplain management the U.S. or imported into the U.S. with must take the following actions: regulations that contribute to protecting expended consumption allowances. lives and reducing the risk of new (1) Indicate on the bill of lading or (1) * * * construction from future flooding. (x) A written statement from the invoice that the class II controlled Because the communities on the producer that the class II controlled substance in the container is a heel. attached list have recently entered the substances were produced with (2) Report within 30 days of the end NFIP, subsidized flood insurance is now expended allowances or a written of the control period the quantity (in available for properties in these statement from the importer that the kilograms) brought into the U.S. and communities. class II controlled substances were certify: FEMA has identified the Special imported with expended allowances. * * * * * Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in some of (2) * * * these communities by publishing a (i) * * * (3) Report on the final disposition of Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or (B) The consumption allowances will each shipment within 30 days of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The be granted to the person the exporter end of the control period. date of the flood map, if one has been indicates, whether it is the producer, the * * * * * published, is indicated in the fourth importer, or the exporter. [FR Doc. E6–11532 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] column of the table. In the communities * * * * * BILLING CODE 6560–50–P listed where a flood map has been I 7. Amend § 82.24 as follows: published, section 202 of the Flood

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41173

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as entities in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. amended, 42 U.S.C. 4016(a), requires Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 3501 et seq. the purchase of flood insurance as a et seq., because the rule creates no List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 condition of Federal or Federally-related additional burden, but lists those financial assistance for acquisition or communities eligible for the sale of Flood insurance, Floodplains. construction of buildings in the SFHAs flood insurance. shown on the map. Regulatory Classification. This final I Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is The Administrator finds that delayed rule is not a significant regulatory action amended as follows: effective dates would be contrary to the under the criteria of section 3(f) of public interest and that notice and Executive Order 12866 of September 30, PART 64—[AMENDED] public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, I 1. The authority citation for part 64 is are impracticable and unnecessary. 58 FR 51735. National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. revised to read as follows: This rule is categorically excluded from This rule involves no policies that have Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, federalism implications under Executive Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, Environmental Considerations. No Order 13132. 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, environmental impact assessment has Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. been prepared. Reform. This rule meets the applicable § 64.6 [Amended] Regulatory Flexibility Act. The standards of Executive Order 12988. Administrator certifies that this rule Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule I 2. The tables published under the will not have a significant economic does not involve any collection of authority of § 64.6 are amended as impact on a substantial number of small information for purposes of the follows:

Community State Location No. Effective date of eligibility Current effective map date

New Eligibles: Emergency Program

Region VII Missouri ...... Theodosia, Village of, Ozark 290306 January 25, 2006 ...... Never Mapped. County. Region III West Virginia ...... West Liberty, Town of, Ohio 540094 February 2, 2006 ...... Never Mapped. County. Region V Ohio ...... Sarahsville, Village of, Noble 390706 February 9, 2006 ...... FHBM dated March 28, 1975. County. Region VI Oklahoma ...... Atoka County, Unincorporated 400508 ...... *do ...... FHBM dated August 14, Areas. 1981. Do ...... Pontotoc County, Unincor- 400495 ...... do ...... FHBM dated January 10, porated Areas. 1978. Region IV Kentucky ...... Morgantown, Town of, Butler 210242 February 10, 2006 ...... Never Mapped. County. Do ...... St. Charles, Town of, Hopkins 210320 ...... do ...... FHBM dated August 13, County. 1976. North Carolina ...... Lasker, Town of, North- 370580 ...... do ...... Never Mapped. ampton County. Region V Ohio ...... LaGrange, Village of, Lorain 390806 ...... do ...... FHBM dated December 23, County. 1977. Region I Maine ...... Jonesboro, Town of, Wash- 230315 February 27, 2006 ...... FHBM dated February 14, ington County. 1975. Region IV Alabama ...... Butler County, Unincorporated 010017 ...... do ...... FHBM dated April 21, 1976. Areas. Georgia ...... Preston, City of, Webster 135170 ...... do ...... Never Mapped. County. Do ...... Webster County, Unincor- 135268 ...... do ...... Never Mapped. porated Areas. South Carolina ...... Mayesville, Town of, Sumter 450225 ...... do ...... FHBM dated March 19, 1976. County. Region VII Kansas ...... Atchison County, Unincor- 200009 ...... do ...... FHBM dated May 31, 1977. porated Areas.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41174 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Community State Location No. Effective date of eligibility Current effective map date

Iowa ...... Cherokee County, Unincor- 190854 March 8, 2006 ...... FHBM dated May 6, 1977. porated Areas. Region III Maryland ...... Somerset, Town of, Mont- 240134 March 9, 2006 ...... Never Mapped. gomery County. Region VI New Mexico ...... Dexter, Town of, Chaves 350112 March 14, 2006 ...... FHBM dated September 17, County. 1976. Louisiana ...... Angie, Village of, Washington 220231 March 22, 2006 ...... FHBM dated January 3, 1975. Parish. Region IV Georgia ...... Hampton, City of, Henry 130107 March 27, 2006 ...... Never Mapped. County. Do ...... Warren County, Unincor- 135262 ...... do ...... Never Mapped. porated Areas. Kentucky ...... Adairville, City of, Logan 210353 ...... do ...... FHBM dated September 8, County. 1978. Tennessee ...... Medina, City of, Gibson 470251 ...... do ...... Never Mapped. County.

New Eligibles: Regular Program

Region VII Iowa ...... Prescott, City of, Adams 190004 January 1, 2006 ...... FHBM dated November 5, County. 1976, converted to FIRM by letter January 1, 2006. Missouri ...... Hallsville, Town of, Boone 290712 ...... do ...... NSFHA FHBM Rescinded. County. Region III Virginia ...... Round Hill, Town of, Loudoun 510279 January 10, 2006 ...... July 5, 2001. County. Region VI Arkansas ...... Horseshoe Lake, Town of, 055057 January 18, 2006 ...... Use Crittenden County (CID Crittenden County. 050429) FIRM panel 0250B, dated November 1, 1985. Region IV Tennessee ...... Pickett County, Unincor- 470384 February 1, 2006 ...... FHBM dated December 29, porated Areas. 1978, converted to FIRM by letter February 1, 2006. Region III West Virginia ...... Harrisville, Town of, Richie 540132 February 7, 2006 ...... NSFHA. County. Region IV Alabama ...... Chilton County, Unincor- 010030 ...... do ...... August 15, 1984. porated Areas. South Carolina ...... Bethune, Town of, Kershaw 450116 February 10, 2006 ...... December 6, 2000. County. Alabama ...... Cullman County, Unincor- 010247 February 27, 2006 ...... December 2, 2004. porated Areas. Do ...... Silas, Town of, Choctaw 010036 ...... do ...... September 30, 1988. County. Region VII Nebraska ...... Center, Village of, Knox 310159 ...... do ...... August 18, 2005. County. Region V Minnesota ...... Greenwood, Township of, St. 270736 March 8, 2006 ...... February 19, 1992. Louis County. Region VII Missouri ...... Kingdom City, Village of, 290007 ...... do ...... Use Callaway County (CID Callaway County. 290049) FIRM panel 0200D, dated February 18, 2005.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41175

Community State Location No. Effective date of eligibility Current effective map date

Region III Maryland ...... Chevy Chase Village, Town 240047 March 13, 2006 ...... NSFHA. of, Montgomery County. Region VII Nebraska ...... Gosper County, Unincor- 310438 March 22, 2006 ...... August 4, 2005. porated Areas. Iowa ...... **Montour, City of, Tama 190782 ...... do ...... January 19, 2006. County. Region X Idaho ...... Carey, City of, Blaine County 160234 ...... do ...... April 20, 2000. Region V Wisconsin ...... Fontana on Geneva Lake, Vil- 550592 March 23, 2006 ...... December 23, 1977. lage of, Walworth County. Region VII Nebraska ...... Elwood, Village of, Gosper 310365 March 31, 2006 ...... August 4, 2005. County.

Reinstatements

Region VII Nebraska ...... Perkins County, Unincor- 310464 January 17, 2006 ...... September 2, 2005. porated Areas. Region III Pennsylvania ...... Limestone, Town of, North- 421922 February 10, 2006 ...... June 1, 1987. ampton County. Region IV North Carolina ...... Henderson County, Unincor- 370125 February 27, 2006 ...... March 1, 1982. porated Areas. Tennessee ...... Benton County, Unincor- 470218 ...... do ...... December 16, 2005. porated Areas. Do ...... McNairy County, Unincor- 470127 ...... do ...... October 24, 2005. porated Areas. Region VII Missouri ...... Westphalia, City of, Osage 290272 March 3, 2006 ...... September 2, 2005. County.

Suspensions

Region V Ohio ...... Washington County, Unincor- 390566 December 24, 1975, Emerg.; February 16, 2006. porated Areas. February 18, 1981, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp. Minnesota ...... Lac Qui Parle County, Unin- 270239 July 3, 1974, Emerg.; June 4, March 16, 2006. corporated Areas. 1980, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp. Region VI Arkansas ...... Quitman, Town of, Cleburne 050280 December 22, 1982, Emerg.; February 16, 2006. County. October 15, 1985, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp. Region VII Missouri ...... Baldwin Park, Village of, Cass 290880 July 19, 1979, Emerg.; Au- March 16, 2006. County. gust 5, 1985, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp. Do ...... Browning, City of, Linn Coun- 290619 July 25, 1975, Emerg.; Sep- January 19, 2006. ty. tember 18, 1985, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp. Do ...... Creighton, City of, Cass 290063 August 3, 1979, Emerg.; June March 16, 2006. County. 30, 1980, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp. Do ...... East Lynne, City of, Cass 290065 August 11, 1975, Emerg.; Do. County. March 25, 1980, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp. Do ...... Purcell, City of, Jasper Coun- 290539 September 3, 1975, Emerg.; Do. ty. September 19, 1984, Reg.; March 17, 2006, Susp.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41176 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Community State Location No. Effective date of eligibility Current effective map date

Suspension Rescissions

Region V Minnesota ...... Boyd, City of, Lac Qui Parle 270240 March 17, 2006, Suspension March 16, 2006. County. Notice Rescinded. Do ...... Dawson, City of, Lac Qui 270241 ...... do ...... Do. Parle County. Ohio ...... Batavia, Village of, Clermont 390066 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Clermont County, Unincor- 390065 ...... do ...... Do. porated Areas. Do ...... Milford, City of, Clermont and 390227 ...... do ...... Do. Hamilton Counties. Do ...... Neville, Village of, Clermont 390641 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... South Point, Village of, Law- 390630 ...... do ...... Do. rence County. Region VII Missouri ...... Annapolis, City of, Iron Coun- 290763 ...... do ...... February 16, 2006. ty. Do ...... Airport Drive, Village of, Jas- 290761 ...... do ...... March 16, 2006. per County. Do ...... Belton, City of, Cass County 290062 ...... do ...... Do. Do ...... Carl Junction, City of, Jasper 290179 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Carterville, City of, Jasper 290180 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Carthage, City of, Jasper 290181 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Cass County, Unincorporated 290783 ...... do ...... Do. Areas. Do ...... Drexel, City of, Bates and 290064 ...... do ...... Do. Cass Counties. Do ...... Duenweg, City of, Jasper 290182 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Freeman, City of, Cass Coun- 290066 ...... do ...... Do. ty. Do ...... Garden City, City of, Cass 290067 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Joplin, City of, Jasper and 290183 ...... do ...... Do. Newton Counties. Do ...... Lake Annette, City of, Cass 290953 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Oronogo, City of, Jasper 290185 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Peculiar, City of, Cass County 290878 ...... do ...... Do. Do ...... Pleasant Hill, City of, Cass 295269 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Raymore, City of, Cass Coun- 290070 ...... do ...... Do. ty. Do ...... Sarcoxie, City of, Jasper 290186 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Strasburg, City of, Cass 290071 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Webb City, City of, Jasper 290187 ...... do ...... Do. County. Region VIII Utah ...... Coalville, City of, Summit 490135 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Henefer, Town of, Summit 490136 ...... do ...... Do. County. Do ...... Oakley, Town of, Summit 490138 ...... do ...... Do. County. * -do- =Ditto. **Designates communities converted from Emergency Phase of participation to the Regular Phase of participation. Code for reading fourth and fifth columns: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Rein.—Reinstatement; Susp.—Suspension; With.—Withdrawn; NSFHA.—Non Special Flood Hazard Area.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 41177

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. must be included when including economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of 83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) clauses and provisions in contracts and Mexico. NMFS has determined that the Dated: June 21, 2006. solicitations. tilefish quota for the commercial fishery will have been reached by July 21, 2006. Michael K. Buckley, List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 652 Deputy Director, Mitigation Division, Federal This closure is necessary to protect the Emergency Management Agency, Department Government procurement. tilefish resource. of Homeland Security. I Accordingly, 48 CFR part 652 is DATES: Closure is effective 12:01 a.m., [FR Doc. E6–11510 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] corrected by making the following local time, July 22, 2006, until 12:01 BILLING CODE 9110–12–P correcting amendments: a.m., local time, on January 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PART 652—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT Jason Rueter, telephone 727–824–5350, DEPARTMENT OF STATE CLAUSES fax 727–824–5308, e-mail [email protected]. I 48 CFR Part 652 1. The authority citation for part 652 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef continues to read as follows: [Public Notice 5469] fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 22 U.S.C. managed under the Fishery RIN 1400–AB90 2658. Management Plan for the Reef Fish 652.228–70 [Amended] Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). Department of State Acquisition The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Regulation; Correction I 2. Amend the date in the heading of Mexico Fishery Management Council the provision at § 652.228–70, Defense AGENCY: Department of State. and is implemented under the authority Base Act—Covered Contractor of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery ACTION: Correcting amendments. Employees, by removing ‘‘(MO/YR)’’ Conservation and Management Act and inserting ‘‘(JUN 2006)’’ in its place. SUMMARY: This document contains (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations corrections to the final regulation 652.228–71 [Amended] at 50 CFR part 622. Those regulations published in the Federal Register of set the commercial quota for tilefish in I 3. Amend the date in the heading of Friday, June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34836). the Gulf of Mexico at 440,000 lb the clause at § 652.228–71, Workers’ The regulations related to changes to the (199,581 kg) for the current fishing year, Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Department of State Acquisition January 1 through December 31, 2006. Act)—Services, by removing ‘‘(MO/YR)’’ Regulation (DOSAR). Under 50 CFR 622.43(a), NMFS is and inserting ‘‘(JUN 2006)’’ in its place. required to close the commercial fishery DATES: Effective on July 20, 2006. 652.228–74 [Amended] for a species or species group when the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: quota for that species or species group Gladys Gines, 703–516–1691 (not a toll- I 4. Amend the date of the heading of is reached, or is projected to be reached, free call); e-mail: [email protected]. the provision at § 652.228–74, Defense by filing a notification to that effect in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Base Act Insurance Rates—Limitation, the Federal Register. Based on current by removing the reference ‘‘(MO/YR)’’ Background statistics, NMFS has determined that the and inserting ‘‘(JUN 2006)’’ in its place. available commercial quota of 440,000 The final regulations that are the Dated: July 13, 2006. lb (199,581 kg) for tilefish will be subject of these corrections concerned Kimberly Triplett, reached on or before July 21, 2006. the application of the Small Business Procurement Analyst, Bureau of Accordingly, NMFS is closing the Act to contracts awarded by domestic Administration, Department of State. commercial tilefish fishery in the Gulf contracting activities where contract [FR Doc. E6–11558 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] of Mexico EEZ from 12:01 a.m., local performance takes place overseas; and BILLING CODE 4710–24–P time, on July 22, 2006, until 12:01 a.m., revised the coverage regarding the local time, on January 1, 2007. The Defense Base Act. A new solicitation operator of a vessel with a valid provision was added at 48 CFR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef 652.228–70, Defense Base Act—Covered fish having tilefish aboard must have Contractor Employees, and the contract National Oceanic and Atmospheric landed and bartered, traded, or sold clause and solicitation provision at Administration such tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local 652.228–71, Workers’ Compensation time, July 22, 2006. Insurance (Defense Base Act)—Services, 50 CFR Part 622 During the closure, the bag and and 652.228–74, Defense Base Act possession limits specified in 50 CFR Insurance Rates—Limitation, were [I.D. 071706B] 622.39(b) apply to all harvest or revised accordingly. possession of tilefish in or from the Gulf Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of of Mexico EEZ, and the sale or purchase Need for Correction Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish of tilefish taken from the EEZ is Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Closure As published, the final regulations prohibited. The prohibition on sale or of the 2006 Tilefish Commercial did not include the dates of the clause purchase does not apply to sale or Fishery and provisions at §§ 652.228–70, purchase of tilefish that were harvested, 652.228–71, and 652.228–74. Since AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 contract clauses and solicitation Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and a.m., local time, July 22, 2006, and were provisions are subject to revision from Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), held in cold storage by a dealer or time to time, all clauses and provisions Commerce. processor. are dated. To avoid confusion ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. concerning which version of any Classification provision or clause is operative in any SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial This action responds to the best given solicitation or contract, the date fishery for tilefish in the exclusive available information recently obtained

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:09 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41178 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

from the fishery. The Assistant DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 2006 and 2007 final harvest Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, specifications for groundfish in the finds that the need to immediately National Oceanic and Atmospheric BSAI (71 FR 10894, March 3, 2006). implement this action to close the Administration In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the fishery constitutes good cause to waive Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, the requirements to provide prior notice 50 CFR Part 679 has determined that the 2006 squid TAC and opportunity for public comment [Docket No. 060216045–6045–01; I.D. in the BSAI has been reached. pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 071706A] Therefore, NMFS is requiring that U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures further catches of squid in the BSAI be would be unnecessary and contrary to Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic treated as a prohibited species in the public interest. Similarly, there is a Zone Off Alaska; Squid in the Bering accordance with § 679.21(b). Sea and Aleutian Islands Management need to implement these measures in a Classification Area timely fashion to prevent an overrun of This action responds to the best the commercial quota of Gulf of Mexico AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries available information recently obtained tilefish, given the capacity of the fishing Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and from the fishery. The Assistant fleet to harvest the quota quickly. Any Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, delay in implementing this action Commerce. (AA), finds good cause to waive the would be impractical and contrary to ACTION: Temporary rule; prohibition of requirement to provide prior notice and the Magnuson-Steven Act, the FMP, and retention. opportunity for public comment the public interest. For these same pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention reasons, NMFS finds good cause that the U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement of squid in the Bering Sea and Aleutian implementation of this action cannot be is impracticable and contrary to the Islands management area (BSAI). NMFS delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under public interest. This requirement is is requiring that catch of squid in this 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective impracticable and contrary to the public area be treated in the same manner as interest as it would prevent NMFS from date is waived. prohibited species and discarded at sea responding to the most recent fisheries This action is taken under 50 CFR with a minimum of injury. This action data in a timely fashion and would 622.43(a) and is exempt from review is necessary because the 2006 total delay prohibiting retention of squid in under Executive Order 12866. allowable catch (TAC) of squid in the the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish BSAI has been reached. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. a notice providing time for public DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local comment because the most recent, Dated: July 17, 2006. time (A.l.t.), July 17, 2006, until 2400 Alan D. Risenhoover, relevant data only became available as hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2006. of July 14, 2006. Acting Director, Office of Sustainable FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The AA also finds good cause to Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Jennifer Hogan, 907–586–7228. waive the 30-day delay in the effective [FR Doc. 06–6374 Filed 7–17–06; 2:17 pm] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS date of this action under 5 U.S.C. BILLING CODE 3510–22–S manages the groundfish fishery in the 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon BSAI exclusive economic zone the reasons provided above for waiver of according to the Fishery Management prior notice and opportunity for public Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea comment. and Aleutian Islands Management Area This action is required by § 679.20 (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific and is exempt from review under Fishery Management Council under Executive Order 12866. authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by Dated: July 17, 2006. U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP Alan D. Risenhoover, appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 Acting Director, Office of Sustainable and 50 CFR part 679. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. The 2006 squid TAC in the BSAI is [FR Doc. 06–6375 Filed 7–17–06; 2:17 pm] 1,084 metric tons as established by the BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1 wwhite on PROD1PC76 with RULES 41179

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 139

Thursday, July 20, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Instructions: All submissions received Conversion Regulations and the MHC contains notices to the public of the proposed must include the agency name and Regulations, including the provisions issuance of rules and regulations. The docket number or Regulatory therein pertaining to stock benefit purpose of these notices is to give interested Information Number (RIN) for this plans.2 persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking. All comments received will OTS last changed the provisions of rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. be posted without change to the OTS the Conversion Regulations addressing Internet site at: http:// stock benefit plans in mutual-to-stock www.ots.treas.gov/ conversions or MHC structures in 2002 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1, (2002 amendments).3 The 2002 including any personal information amendments revised the MHC Office of Thrift Supervision provided. Regulations to, among other things, Docket: For access to the docket to permit the amount of stock includable 12 CFR Parts 563b and 575 read background documents or in stock benefit plans established in MHC structures to be set as if 49.0 [No. 2006–29] comments received go to http:// www.ots.treas.gov/ percent of the stock was issued to RIN 1550–AC07 pagehtml.cfm?catNumber=67&an=1. In minority shareholders, and added a addition, you may inspect comments at requirement that certain plans not Stock Benefit Plans in Mutual-to-Stock the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, exceed 25 percent of the stock actually Conversions and Mutual Holding NW., by appointment. To make an offered in the Minority Stock Issuance. Company Structures appointment for access, call (202) 906– The 25 percent limitation was intended AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, 5922, send an e-mail to to ensure that insiders did not receive Treasury. [email protected], or send a a disproportionate share of small ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. facsimile transmission to (202) 906– Minority Stock Issuances. 7755. (Prior notice identifying the OTS believes that confusion exists SUMMARY: The Office of Thrift materials you will be requesting will regarding the application of the stock Supervision (OTS) is proposing to assist us in serving you.) We schedule benefit plan provisions in the clarify its regulations regarding stock appointments on business days between Conversion Regulations and the MHC benefit plans established after mutual- 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, Regulations. OTS therefore proposes to to-stock conversions or in mutual appointments will be available the next clarify its regulations on stock benefit holding company structures. In business day following the date we plans currently found at 12 CFR addition, OTS proposes to reduce the receive a request. 563b.500 and 575.8. These clarifications are not intended to change existing OTS voting requirements for the adoption of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: policies regarding stock benefit plans. In stock benefit plans in mutual holding Donald W. Dwyer, (202) 906–6414, addition, OTS proposes to reduce company structures and to make several Director, Applications, Examinations regulatory burden by adjusting the other minor changes to the regulations and Supervision—Operations; Aaron B. voting requirements for the adoption of governing mutual-to-stock conversions Kahn, (202) 906–6263, Assistant Chief stock benefit plans in MHC structures. and minority stock issuances. Counsel, Business Transactions Division Also, OTS proposes to allow lower DATES: Comments must be received on or David A. Permut, (202) 906–7505, maximum purchase limitations in or before September 18, 2006. Senior Attorney, Business Transactions mutual-to-stock conversion offerings ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Office (Conversion Offerings) and in Minority identified by No. 2006–29, by any of the of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, Stock Issuances. following methods: NW., Washington, DC 20552. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Savings I. Stock Benefit Plans www.regulations.gov. Follow the associations that propose to convert to instructions for submitting comments. OTS has permitted the establishment stock form are subject to the OTS • E-mail: of three types of stock benefit plans in mutual-to-stock conversion regulations, [email protected]. Please connection with mutual-to-stock 12 CFR part 563b (Conversion include No. 2006–29 in the subject line conversions and Minority Stock Regulations). Mutual holding companies of the message, and include your name Issuances. These stock benefit plans (MHCs) are subject to OTS regulations at and telephone number in the message. include: (i) Employee Stock Ownership • Fax: (202) 906–6518. 12 CFR part 575 (MHC Regulations). Plans and similar plans (ESOPs), which • Mail: Regulation Comments, Chief Subsidiary mutual holding companies must be tax-qualified; 4 (ii) Stock Option Counsel’s Office, Office of Thrift (Subsidiary MHCs) and savings Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., associations (collectively, Subsidiary MHC after the Minority Stock Issuance. See 12 U.S.C. 1467a(o)(8)(B) and 12 CFR 575.7(a)(5). Washington, DC 20552, Attention: No. Companies) in MHC structures that propose to issue common stock in a 2 The MHC Regulations currently include four 2006–29. separate provisions stating that the Conversion • Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard’s minority stock issuance (Minority Stock Regulations apply in the context of stock issuances 1 Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Issuance) are subject to both the by subsidiaries of MHCs. See, 12 CFR 575.7(a), Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on 575.7(b)(1), 575.7(d)(6)(ii), and 575.7(e)(2006). 1 In a Minority Stock Issuance, the Subsidiary 3 See 67 FR 52010, at 52014 (August 9, 2002). business days, Attention: Regulation Company issues stock to entities other than the 4 These plans include 401(k) plans and plans Comments, Chief Counsel’s Office, parent MHC. The parent MHC must hold more than defined at 12 CFR 563b.25 as tax-qualified Attention: No. 2006–29. 50 percent of the common stock of the Subsidiary Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41180 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Plans (Option Plans), which are percent of the total shares outstanding In addition, as discussed in more typically non-tax-qualified; and (iii) (or 3.6 percent, if the association’s detail below, OTS believes that it is Management Recognition Plans (MRPs) tangible capital exceeded ten percent). appropriate to adjust the shareholder (sometimes referred to as Retention and In the 2002 amendment, OTS set the vote requirements for the adoption of Recognition Plans), which are also maximum size for stock benefit plans as benefit plans in MHC structures. typically non-tax-qualified. if the Minority Stock Issuance had been Section 563b.500 of the Conversion 49.0 percent of the Subsidiary A. Proposed Rule Changes at § 563b.500 Regulations sets forth certain limitations Company’s stock, regardless of the Regarding Stock Benefit Plans for stock benefit plans during the year actual percentage of shares issued in the OTS proposes to clarify 12 CFR following a Conversion Offering. For Minority Stock Issuance.6 563b.500 by referring to the specific example, ESOPs and MRPs are generally The 2002 amendment also added an type of plan addressed (that is, an ESOP, limited to holding, in the aggregate, no overall limitation, to prevent issuing an Option Plan, or MRP), rather than more than ten percent of the number of excessive amount of stock to referring to plans in terms of their tax- shares issued in a mutual-to-stock management, particularly in small qualified or non-tax-qualified nature. conversion (§ 563b.500(a)(4)). However, offerings. That restriction limited the OTS proposes to revise § 563b.500(a)(1) if the converting institution has at least aggregate amount of stock issued to all to clarify that a shareholder vote is not ten percent tangible capital following Option Plans and MRPs (but excluding required to establish an ESOP. OTS also the completion of the conversion, then ESOPs) in connection with any Minority proposes to move the provision ESOPs and MRPs are permitted to hold Stock Issuance and all prior Minority addressing votes on Option Plans and up to an aggregate of 12 percent of the Stock Issuances, to 25 percent of the MRPs in the context of MHCs from number of shares issued in the outstanding stock of the association § 563b.500(a)(7) to the MHC conversion (§ 563b.500(a)(4)). In held by persons other than the parent Regulations, because it is more addition, the Conversion Regulations MHC.7 OTS has discovered that some appropriate to locate provisions dealing (§ 563b.500(a)(3)) restrict MRPs to three persons incorrectly believed that the 25 exclusively with MHC structures in the percent of the number of shares issued percent limit was the only limit on the MHC Regulations. in the conversion. If the institution has aggregate size of all Option Plans and at least ten percent tangible capital MRPs, rather than one of several distinct B. Proposed Rule Changes at § 575.7 following the completion of the limitations. Regarding Minority Stock Issuances conversion, however, MRPs may OTS believes that some confusion Section 575.7 sets forth the general encompass four percent of the number exists as to how the various limitations requirements for Minority Stock of shares issued in the conversion. It has in the Conversion and MHC Regulations Issuances by Subsidiary Companies. been OTS’s experience that most interact with each other. Therefore, OTS Section 575.7 provides, in four separate converting associations implement an proposes to clarify several of the places, that some or all of the eight percent ESOP and a four percent existing regulations at sections requirements of the Conversion MRP when they have at least ten 563b.500, 575.7, and 575.8 to eliminate Regulations are applicable to Minority percent tangible capital after the any confusion. Stock Issuances. OTS proposes to conversion. streamline the MHC Regulations by In addition, converting associations 6 Where a Subsidiary Company sets the size of a removing two of those references. may offer a separate Option Plan of up stock benefit plan as if it engaged in a 49 percent OTS proposes to retain the general to ten percent of the number of shares Minority Stock Issuance, a plan of the same type established in any second-step mutual-to-stock provision at § 575.7(e), which would be issued in the conversion conversion of the relevant MHC must be based on redesignated as § 575.7(d), stating that (§ 563b.500(a)(2)). not more than 51 percent of the resulting publicly the procedural and substantive In MHC structures, Subsidiary held association’s or holding company’s issued and requirements of the Conversion outstanding stock, following the consummation of Companies offer less than 50 percent of Regulations apply to Minority Stock their stock to the public. This the second-step conversion. See 12 CFR 563b.500(a). The stock issued and outstanding upon Issuances unless clearly inapplicable. arrangement creates smaller stock consummation of the second-step conversion However, OTS proposes to add language benefit plans for companies in the MHC includes both the stock issued in accordance with to this section similar to the language in the mutual-to-stock conversion priorities for the form. In order to make the MHC form of current § 575.7(b)(1) clarifying that OTS organization more reasonable, OTS second-step conversion and the shares issued in exchange for the shares held by the Subsidiary makes the determination whether a expanded the permissible size of stock Company’s minority stockholders. 5 section is clearly inapplicable. OTS also benefit plans in the 2002 amendments. If the Subsidiary Company sets the size of the proposes to relocate certain language Prior to the 2002 amendments, the stock benefit plan based on a percentage less than 49 percent (such as the actual percentage issued in from § 575.7(b)(1) to proposed maximum size of plans was set in § 575.7(d). The language in question relation to the percentage of stock the Minority Stock Issuance), then the same principle applies. For example, if a Subsidiary states that for purposes of the provision actually offered in the Minority Stock Company established plans based on an actual 40 the term ‘‘conversion’’ as it appears in Issuance. For example, if the Subsidiary percent Minority Stock Issuance, then the plans the Conversion Regulations, refers to the Company issued only 30 percent of its established in connection with the second-step Minority Stock Issuance, and the term stock in the Minority Stock Issuance, it conversion must be based on not more than 60 percent of the shares to be issued in the second-step ‘‘converted or converting savings would have been restricted to an Option conversion. This is the case regardless of whether, association’’ as it appears in the Plan encompassing three percent of total after the Minority Stock Issuance, the Subsidiary Conversion Regulations, refers to the shares outstanding (ten percent of 30 Company repurchased shares of its stock (and Subsidiary Company making the percent) and a combined ESOP and therefore more than 60 percent of the shares that will be issued and outstanding upon consummation Minority Stock Issuance. MRP encompassing an aggregate of three of the second-step conversion would be issued in In light of these proposed changes, accordance with the mutual-to-stock conversion OTS proposes to eliminate the cross- employee stock benefit plans. Because the only priorities). 8 types of tax-qualified plans established in mutual- 7 For example, the overall limitation for a 28 references at §§ 575.7(a) and to-stock conversions in the recent past have been percent Minority Stock Issuance would be no more ESOPs, OTS proposes to define the tax-qualified than seven percent for the Option Plan and MRP (25 8 Eliminating the cross-reference in § 575.7(a) plans as ESOPs, in order to simplify the regulations. percent of 28 percent equals seven percent) for the does not remove the requirement that MHCs must 5 67 FR 52010, at 52014. proposed issuance, plus all prior issuances. file business plans in connection with Minority

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41181

575.7(b)(1). OTS proposes to keep the provide clarity and to reduce existing tangible capital exceeding ten percent. reference at § 575.7(d)(6)(ii), however, regulatory burdens, OTS proposes to Again, OTS consistently has applied because the cross-reference permits an amend § 575.8 to state that the this provision of the Conversion applicant to engage in a Minority Stock restrictions set forth in proposed Regulations to Minority Stock Issuances. Issuance that does not meet the mutual- sections 563b.500(a)(4) through The MHC Regulations do not include a to-stock conversion priorities if the 563b.500(a)(14) apply in the context of corresponding provision, and OTS applicant demonstrates that a non- a Minority Stock Issuance for only one proposes to amend the MHC conforming issuance is appropriate. year after the Subsidiary Company Regulations to eliminate this disparity. OTS proposes to revise and relocate engages in a Minority Stock Issuance Furthermore, OTS believes that the § 575.7(b)(2). This section provides that, that is conducted in accordance with presence of language addressing unless OTS determines otherwise, the the purchase priorities set forth in the individual purchase limitations (and limitations on the minimum and Conversion Regulations. Each such those involving individuals and their maximum amounts of the estimated Minority Stock Issuance would start a associates) in sections 575.8(a)(3) and price range required by 12 CFR new one-year period. (a)(4) is confusing. These provisions, to 563b.330 do not apply. OTS has applied In order to further clarify the MHC the extent they pertain to individuals the limitations in 12 CFR 563b.330 in all Regulations and to eliminate certain and their associates, are unnecessary Minority Stock Issuances, except in unintended inconsistencies between the because the Conversion Regulations cases where the issuance involved only Conversion Regulations and the MHC provide the necessary limitations.10 In stock benefit plans or an acquisition. Regulations, OTS is making three addition, the usefulness of such Accordingly, OTS proposes to revise additional changes. First, the provisions in the MHC regulations is this section to state that § 563b.330 will Conversion Regulations (at current limited, because the limitations in apply to Minority Stock Issuances, § 563b.500(a)(3) and proposed §§ 575.8(a)(3) and (a)(4) do not include unless OTS determines otherwise, and § 563b.500(a)(3)(ii)) include a separate shares acquired in the secondary to recodify this provision, as modified, limitation regarding the size of MRPs. market. Accordingly, OTS proposes to at § 575.7(a)(9). Notwithstanding the lack of a specific eliminate the reference to purchases by OTS proposes to eliminate 12 CFR provision in the MHC Regulations individuals and their associates 575.7(b)(3), which requires stock addressing MRPs, OTS has consistently presently set forth in sections offering materials to disclose the applied such a requirement in the 575.8(a)(3) and (a)(4) from the MHC amount of any discount on minority context of Minority Stock Issuances, by Regulations. stock, and how the amount of the applying the plan limits in the In addition, OTS is clarifying sections discount was determined. The general Conversion Regulations to Minority 575.8(a)(3) through (a)(9) to make it 9 securities offering disclosure Stock Issuances. Therefore, OTS clear that the limitations on benefit plans will be set in relation to the stock requirements, which require disclosure proposes to include a corresponding or equity outstanding at the close of the of material information, are sufficient to limitation on the size of MRPs in most recent Minority Stock Issuance address the issue of disclosure of the § 575.8. Second, the Conversion Regulations made in conjunction with the amount and reasons for any discount on (at current § 563b.500(a)(4), and promulgation of a benefit plan. Also, in minority stock. proposed § 563b.500(a)(3)(i)) include a sections 575.8(a)(7), OTS is clarifying C. Proposed Rule Changes at § 575.8 limitation on the combined size of the that, when a plan is adopted or Regarding Stock Benefit Plans ESOP and MRP. The current MHC modified more than one year after a Section 575.8 contains the current Regulations do not include an aggregate Minority Stock Issuance, the limitations limitations for stock benefit plans in limitation on ESOPs and MRPs. in sections 575.8(a)(3) through (a)(6) may be exceeded to the extent that: (i) MHC structures. OTS proposes to clarify However, OTS has consistently applied Awards in excess of those limitations the § 575.8 provisions pertaining to such a restriction to Minority Stock are made with stock purchased in the stock benefit plans in several respects. Issuances, based on the cross-reference secondary market; and (ii) such First, as with § 563b.500, OTS proposes to the Conversion Regulations. In order purchases take place at least one year to replace the references to tax-qualified to conform the MHC Regulations to the after the most recent Minority Stock and non-tax-qualified benefit plans in Conversion Regulations, OTS proposes Issuance that is made in substantial § 575.8(a) with references to a specific to revise the MHC Regulations to conformity with the purchase priorities type of plan (that is, the ESOP, Option explicitly include an aggregate set out in part 563b. Plan, or MRP). Second, OTS proposes to limitation on ESOPs and MRPs. In addition to aggregate limitations on Similarly, in § 575.8(a)(8)(ii), OTS include language in § 575.8 stating that proposes to clarify that when a plan is the quantitative limitations regarding ESOPs and MRPs, OTS proposes to retain the existing aggregate limitation adopted or modified more than one year the size of ESOPs, Option Plans, and after a Minority Stock Issuance, the MRPs set forth in § 575.8 supersede the on the size of the Option Plans and MRPs set forth at § 575.8(a)(9) of the limitations in § 575.8(a)(8)(i) may be related quantitative limits in proposed exceeded to the extent that: (i) Awards sections 563b.500(a)(2) through MHC Regulations. Third, the Conversion Regulations in excess of those limitations are made 563b.500(a)(4). This change should with stock purchased in the secondary reduce regulatory burden by eliminating impose a higher limitation on the size of MRPs and a higher aggregate market; and (ii) such purchases take the need for Subsidiary Companies to place at least one year after the most consider both the MHC Regulations and limitation on the size of ESOPs and MRPs if the association in question has recent Minority Stock Issuance that is the Conversion Regulations to made in substantial conformity with the determine the permissible size of certain 9 Because OTS proposes to simplify the MHC purchase priorities set out in part 563b. stock benefit plans. Third, in order to Regulations to provide that institutions proposing In addition, in § 575.8(a)(9), OTS Minority Stock Issuances would need to look only proposes to clarify that the limitation Stock Issuances. Under proposed § 575.7(d), all at § 575.8 to determine the permissible size of their procedural and substantive requirements in the stock benefit plans, repeating this restriction, and therein presents a separate limitation on Conversion Regulations apply to Minority Stock the restrictions described below, in the MHC Issuances, unless clearly inapplicable. Regulations is necessary. 10 See 12 CFR 563b.370 (2006).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41182 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Option Plans and MRPs that applies to III. Solicitation of Comments institutions. First, the proposed rule each Minority Stock Issuance. However, addresses the confusion surrounding A. Solicitation of Comments on the compliance with OTS regulations that limitation does not require Proposed Amendments reductions in otherwise permissible regarding stock benefit plans in awards under an existing plan when OTS is requesting comment on all connection with mutual-to-stock there is a subsequent Minority Stock aspects of the proposed regulation. conversions and Minority Stock Issuance where the excess results from Specifically OTS seeks comment on: Issuances. These clarifications will (1) Does the proposed regulation intervening purchases by individuals in reduce the burden of complying with accomplish its stated purposes? the secondary market. the OTS regulations on stock benefit (2) Does the proposed regulation plans. Second, OTS has reduced the As mentioned previously, OTS eliminate ambiguities regarding stock voting requirement to adopt stock proposes to move the last sentence in benefit plans in mutual-to-stock benefit plans in MHC structures, which current § 563b.500(a)(7), pertaining to conversions? reduces burden on institutions mutual holding companies, to new (3) Does the proposed regulation establishing stock benefit plans. Finally, § 575.8(c). This sentence currently create any ambiguities that were not the proposed rule will reduce burden by requires that a majority of the present in the current regulation? broadening the purchase limitations, outstanding minority shares approve (4) Does the proposed regulation thereby promoting a wider distribution any Option Plan and any MRP (in impose unnecessary regulatory burdens? of stock in a Conversion Offering or addition to the requirement that a B. Solicitation of Comments Regarding Minority Stock Issuance. All of the majority of all shares approve any the Use of Plain Language proposed changes are minor and should Option Plan and any MRP). Because Section 722 of GLBA requires Federal not have a significant impact on small OTS believes the current provisions are banking agencies to use ‘‘plain institutions. Accordingly, OTS has unduly restrictive, OTS proposes two language’’ in all proposed and final determined that a Regulatory Flexibility changes to the minority vote rules published after January 1, 2000. Analysis is not required. requirement proposed at § 575.8(c). OTS invites comments on how to make D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of First, OTS proposes to revise the this proposed rule easier to understand. 1995 provision to require a vote of the For example: minority shareholders only during the (1) Have we organized the material to OTS has determined that the first year after a Minority Stock Issuance suit your needs? If not, how could we proposed rule will not result in that was conducted in accordance with better organize it? expenditures by state, local, or tribal the mutual-to-stock conversion (2) Do we clearly state the governments or by the private sector of subscription priorities. Second, OTS requirements in the rule? If not, how $100 million or more and that a proposes to revise the provision to could we state the rule more clearly? budgetary impact statement is not require approval (during the first year (3) Does the rule contain technical required under section 202 of the after a Minority Stock Issuance) by a language or jargon that is not clear? If Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of majority of the minority shares voting so, what language requires clarification? 1995, Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded (4) Would a different format (grouping on the issue of adoption of the plan, Mandates Act). The proposed rule and order of sections, use of headings, rather than a majority of the outstanding would make certain changes that should paragraphing) make the rule easier to minority shares. reduce burdens on savings associations. understand? If so, what changes to the First, the proposed rule clarifies OTS II. Maximum Purchase Limitation format would make the rule easier to regulations regarding stock benefit plans understand? in connection with mutual-to-stock OTS proposes to increase an V. Regulatory Findings conversions and Minority Stock institution’s choices regarding Issuances, which should reduce the maximum purchase limitations. Section A. Paperwork Reduction Act burden of complying with the OTS 563b.385 addresses maximum purchase OTS has determined that this regulations on stock benefit plans. limitations for subscriptions in mutual- proposed rule does not involve a change Second, OTS has reduced the voting to-stock conversions. Currently, to collections of information previously requirement to adopt stock benefit plans converting savings associations are approved under the Paperwork in MHC structures, which reduces permitted to set a maximum purchase Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). burden on institutions establishing limitation between one and five percent stock benefit plans. Finally, the of the stock sold. OTS has received B. Executive Order 12866 proposed rule will reduce burden by many requests to waive the purchase The Director of OTS has determined broadening the purchase limitations, to limitations. This is particularly that this proposed rule does not promote a wider distribution of stock in appropriate in the case of larger constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory a Conversion Offering or Minority Stock offerings, where a one percent limit action’’ for purposes of Executive Order Issuance. All of the proposed changes would constitute a very large 12866. are minor and should not have a significant impact on small institutions. investment. Because OTS’s policy is to C. Regulatory Flexibility Act achieve as widespread a distribution of Accordingly, a budgetary impact Pursuant to section 605(b) of the stock as possible (see § 563b.395), the statement is not required under section Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. request for a waiver to set a smaller U.S.C. 601), the Director certifies that maximum purchase limitation is often this proposed rule will not have a List of Subjects granted. OTS proposes to amend this significant economic impact on a 12 CFR Part 563b section to permit smaller purchase substantial number of small entities. limitations. The proposed rule would make certain Reporting and recordkeeping changes that should reduce burdens on requirements, Savings associations, all savings associations, including small Securities.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41183

12 CFR Part 575 number of shares that you issued in the months after the conversion. If a plan Administrative practice and conversion. adopted in conformity with paragraph (4) No individual receives more than procedure, Capital, Holding companies, (a) is amended more than 12 months 25 percent of the shares under your Reporting and recordkeeping following your conversion, your ESOP, MRP, or Option Plan. shareholders must ratify any material requirements, Savings associations, (5) Your directors who are not your Securities. deviations to the requirements in officers do not receive more than five paragraph (a) of this section. Accordingly, the Office of Thrift percent of the shares of your MRP or Supervision proposes to amend Chapter Option Plan individually, or 30 percent PART 575—MUTUAL HOLDING V of title 12 of the Code of Federal of any such plan in the aggregate. COMPANIES Regulations, as set forth below. (6) Your shareholders approve each of 4. The authority citation for part 575 the Option Plan and the MRP by a continues to read as follows: PART 563b—CONVERSIONS FROM majority of the total votes eligible to be MUTUAL TO STOCK FORM cast at a duly called meeting before you Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1828, 2901. 1. The authority citation for part 563b establish or implement the plan. You continues to read as follows: may not hold this meeting until six § 575.7 [Amended] months after your conversion. Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, (7) When you distribute proxies or 5. Amend § 575.7(a) by removing the 1464, 1467a, 2901; 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, first sentence. 78n, 78w. related material to shareholders in connection with the vote on a plan, you 6. In § 575.7(b), redesignate paragraph § 563b.385 [Amended] state that the plan complies with OTS (b)(2) as (a)(9) and remove the word regulations and that OTS does not ‘‘not’’ in that paragraph, remove the 2. Amend § 563b.385(a) by removing endorse or approve the plan in any way. remaining text in paragraph (b), the phrase ‘‘between one percent and’’ You may not make any written or oral redesignate paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) and adding the words ‘‘up to’’ in place representations to the contrary. as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), and revise thereof. (8) You do not grant stock options at newly designated paragraph (d) to read 3. Revise § 563b.500 to read as less than the market price at the time of as follows: follows: grant. (d) Procedural and substantive requirements. The procedural and § 563b.500. What management stock (9) You do not fund the Option Plan benefit plans may I implement? or the MRP at the time of the substantive requirements of 12 CFR part conversion. 563b shall apply to all mutual holding (a) During the 12 months after your (10) Your plan does not begin to vest company stock issuances under this conversion, you may implement a stock earlier than one year after shareholders section, unless clearly inapplicable, as option plan (Option Plan), an employee approve the plan, and does not vest at determined by OTS. For purposes of stock ownership plan or other tax- a rate exceeding 20 percent per year. this paragraph (d), the term conversion qualified employee stock benefit plan (11) Your plan permits accelerated as it appears in the provisions of part (collectively, ESOP), and a management vesting only for disability or death, or if 563b of this chapter shall refer to the recognition plan (MRP), provided you you undergo a change of control. stock issuance, and the term converted meet all of the following requirements. (12) Your plan provides that your or converting savings association shall (1) You disclose the plans in your executive officers or directors must refer to the savings association proxy statement and offering circular exercise or forfeit their options in the undertaking the stock issuance. and indicate in your offering circular event the institution becomes critically 7. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) through that there will be a separate shareholder undercapitalized (as defined in § 565.4 (a)(9) of § 575.8 to read as follows: vote on the Option Plan and the MRP at of this chapter), is subject to OTS least six months after the conversion. enforcement action, or receives a capital § 575.8 Contents of stock issuance plans. No shareholder vote is required to directive under § 565.7 of this chapter. (a) Mandatory provisions. * * * implement the ESOP. Your ESOP must (13) You file a copy of the proposed * * * * * be tax-qualified. Option Plan or MRP with OTS and (3) Provide that all employee stock (2) Your Option Plan does not certify to OTS that the plan approved by ownership plans (ESOPs) must not encompass more than ten percent of the the shareholders is the same plan that encompass, in the aggregate, more than number of shares that you issued in the you filed with, and disclosed in, the either 4.9 percent of the outstanding conversion. proxy materials distributed to shares of the savings association’s (3)(i) Your ESOP and MRP do not shareholders in connection with the common stock or 4.9 percent of the encompass, in the aggregate, more than vote on the plan. savings association’s stockholders’ ten percent of the number of shares that (14) You file the plan and the equity at the close the proposed you issued in the conversion. If you certification with OTS within five issuance. have tangible capital of ten percent or calendar days after your shareholders (4) Provide that all ESOPs and more following the conversion, OTS approve the plan. management recognition plans (MRPs) may permit your ESOP and MRP to (b) You may provide dividend must not encompass, in the aggregate, encompass, in the aggregate, up to 12 equivalent rights or dividend more than either 4.9 percent of the percent of the number of shares issued adjustment rights to allow for stock outstanding shares of the savings in the conversion; and splits or other adjustments to your stock association’s common stock or 4.9 (ii) Your MRP does not encompass in your ESOP, MRP, and Option Plan. percent of the savings association’s more than three percent of the number (c) The restrictions in paragraph (a) do stockholders’ equity at the close of the of shares that you issued in the not apply to plans implemented more proposed issuance. However, if the conversion. If you have tangible capital than 12 months after the conversion, savings association’s tangible capital of ten percent or more after the provided that materials pertaining to equals at least ten percent at the time of conversion, OTS may permit your MRP any shareholder vote regarding such implementation of the plan, OTS may to encompass up to four percent of the plans are not distributed within the 12 permit such ESOPs and MRPs to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41184 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

encompass, in the aggregate, up to 5.88 Officer and the votes cast by stockholders other than percent of the outstanding common Institution size director the mutual holding company. stock or stockholders’ equity at the close purchases (percent) Dated: July 11, 2006. of the proposed issuance. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. (5) Provide that all MRPs must not $250,000,001–300,000,000 ...... 30 encompass, in the aggregate, more than John M. Reich, $300,000,001–350,000,000 ...... 29 Director. either 1.47 percent of the common stock $350,000,001–400,000,000 ...... 28 of the savings association or 1.47 $400,000,001–450,000,000 ...... 27 [FR Doc. E6–11278 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] percent of the savings association’s $450,000,001–500,000,000 ...... 26 BILLING CODE 6720–01–P stockholders’ equity at the close of the Over $500,000,000 ...... 25 proposed issuance. However, if the savings association’s tangible capital is (ii) The percentage limitations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION at least ten percent at the time of contained in paragraph 8(i) may be implementation of the plan, OTS may exceeded provided that all stock Federal Aviation Administration permit MRPs to encompass, in the acquired by insiders and associates of aggregate, up to 1.96 percent of the insiders or awarded under all MRPs and 14 CFR Part 33 outstanding shares of the savings Option Plans in excess of those [Docket No. FAA–2006–25375; Notice No. association’s common stock or 1.96 limitations is acquired in the secondary 06–09] market. If acquired for such awards on percent of the savings association’s RIN 2120–AI73 stockholders’ equity at the close of the the secondary market, such acquisitions must begin no earlier than one year after proposed issuance. Airworthiness Standards; Engine Bird the close of the proposed issuance or (6) Provide that all stock option plans Ingestion (Option Plans) must not encompass, in any subsequent issuance that is made in the aggregate, more than either 4.9 substantial conformity with the AGENCY: Federal Aviation percent of the savings association’s purchase priorities set forth in part Administration (FAA), DOT. outstanding common stock at the close 563b. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking of the proposed issuance or 4.9 percent (iii) In calculating the number of (NPRM). of the savings association’s shares held by insiders and their SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to stockholders’ equity at the close of the associates under this provision, shares amend the aircraft turbine engine type proposed issuance. awarded but not delivered under an (7) A plan modified or adopted no ESOP, MRP, or Option Plan that are certification standards to reflect recent earlier than one year after the close of attributable to such persons shall not be analysis of the threat flocking birds the proposed issuance, or any counted as being acquired by such present to turbine engine aircraft. These subsequent issuance that is made in persons. proposed changes would also substantial conformity with the (9) Provide that the amount of harmonize FAA, Joint Aviation purchase priorities set forth in Part common stock that may be Authority (JAA), and European Aviation 563b, may exceed the percentage encompassed under all Option Plans Safety Agency (EASA) bird ingestion limitations contained in paragraphs 3 and MRPs must not exceed, in the standards for aircraft turbine engines through 6 (plan expansion), subject to aggregate, 25 percent of the outstanding type certificated by the United States the following two requirements. First, common stock held by persons other and the JAA/EASA countries, and all common stock awarded in than the savings association’s mutual simplify airworthiness approvals for connection with any plan expansion holding company parent at the close of import and export. These proposed must be acquired for such awards in the the proposed issuance. changes are necessary to establish 8. Add a new paragraph (c) to § 575.8, secondary market. Second, such uniform international standards that to read as follows. provide an adequate level of safety for acquisitions must begin no earlier than (c) Applicability of provisions of when such plan expansion is permitted aircraft turbine engines with respect to § 563b.500(a) to minority stock the current large flocking bird threat. to be made. issuances. Notwithstanding § 575.7(d) of (8)(i) Provide that the aggregate DATES: Send your comments on or this part, §§ 563b.500(a)(2) and (3) do amount of common stock that may be before September 18, 2006. not apply to minority stock issuances, encompassed under all Option Plans ADDRESSES: You may send comments because the permissible sizes of ESOPs, and MRPs, or acquired by all insiders of [identified by Docket Number FAA– MRPs, and Option Plans in minority the association and associates of 2006–25375] using any of the following stock issuances are subject to each of the insiders of the association, must not methods: requirements set forth at paragraphs exceed the following percentages of • DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// (a)(3) through (a)(9) of this section. common stock or stockholders’ equity of dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions Sections 563b.500(a)(4) though (a)(14) the savings association, held by persons for sending your comments apply for one year after the savings other than the savings association’s electronically. association engages in a minority stock mutual holding company parent at the • Government-wide rulemaking Web issuance that is conducted in close of the proposed issuance: site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov accordance with the purchase priorities and follow the instructions for sending Officer and set forth in part 563b. In addition to the your comments electronically. shareholder vote requirement for Option • Institution size director Mail: Docket Management Facility; purchases Plans and MRPs set forth at U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 (percent) § 563b.500(a)(6), any Option Plans and Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, MRPs put to a shareholder vote during $50,000,000 or less ...... 35 Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– $50,000,001–100,000,000 ...... 34 the year after a minority stock issuance 0001. $100,000,001–150,000,000 ...... 33 that is conducted in accordance with • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. $150,000,001–200,000,000 ...... 32 the purchase priorities set forth in part • Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on $200,000,001–250,000,000 ...... 31 563b must be approved by a majority of the plaza level of the Nassif Building,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41185

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, association, business, labor union, etc.). ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday You may review DOT’s complete SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by through Friday, except Federal holidays. Privacy Act Statement in the Federal calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to For more information on the Register published on April 11, 2000 identify the docket number, notice rulemaking process, see the (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit number, or amendment number of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of http://dms.dot.gov. rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we this document. Executive Summary Privacy: We will post all comments will consider all comments we receive we receive, without change, to http:// on or before the closing date for The FAA adopted new regulations dms.dot.gov, including any personal comments. We will consider comments under 14 CFR 33.76 on September 5, information you provide. For more filed late if it is possible to do so 2000, to better address the overall bird information, see the Privacy Act without incurring expense or delay. We ingestion threat. These requirements discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY may change this proposal in light of the were adopted, in part, as a response to INFORMATION section of this document. comments we receive. a National Transportation Safety Board Docket: To read background If you want the FAA to acknowledge (NTSB) recommendation (Number A– documents or comments received, go to receipt of your comments on this 76–64), which recommended an http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to proposal, include with your comments increase in the level of bird ingestion Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on capability for aircraft engines. These Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, which the docket number appears. We requirements were published as SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. will stamp the date on the postcard and Amendment 20 to part 33, § 33.76, in and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, mail it to you. December 2000. except Federal holidays. In that final rule, the FAA also agreed Proprietary or Confidential Business to study the bird threat further and to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information consider additional rulemaking to Marc Bouthillier, Rulemaking and Do not file in the docket information address larger flocking birds, since Policy Branch, Engine and Propeller that you consider to be proprietary or certification requirements did not Directorate, ANE–111, Federal Aviation confidential business information. Send address the threat that either birds Administration, 12 New England or deliver this information directly to bigger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) or their Executive Park, Burlington, the person identified in the FOR FURTHER growing population, presented to engine Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) INFORMATION CONTACT section of this operational safety. In 2001, the FAA 238–7196; facsimile (781) 238–7199; e- initiated a contract to collect and mail [email protected]. document. You must mark the information that you consider analyze data, and reported its findings SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: proprietary or confidential. If you send in DOT/FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR– Comments Invited the information on a disk or CD–ROM, TN03/60, ‘‘Study of Bird Ingestions into mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM Aircraft Turbine Engines (1968–1999)’’. The FAA invites interested persons to and also identify electronically within The report summarized the historical participate in this rulemaking by the disk or CD–ROM the specific bird threat and resulting impact to flight submitting written comments, data, or information that is proprietary or safety, based on bird ingestion data views. We also invite comments relating confidential. collected and analyzed for the 30-year to the economic, environmental, energy, Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are period ending in 1999. or federalism impacts that might result aware of proprietary information filed The Transport Airplane and Engine from adopting the proposals in this with a comment, we do not place it in Issues Group (TAEIG), and its Engine document. The most helpful comments the docket. We hold it in a separate file Harmonization Working Group (EHWG) reference a specific portion of the to which the public does not have utilized the report discussed above and proposal, explain the reason for any access, and place a note in the docket reported back to the FAA’s Aviation recommended change, and include that we have received it. If we receive Rulemaking Advisory Committee supporting data. We ask that you send a request to examine or copy this (ARAC) on January 6, 2003 with its us two copies of written comments. information, we treat it as any other results and its proposed additional part We will file in the docket all request under the Freedom of 33 requirements. The ARAC adopted the comments we receive, as well as a Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We working group’s recommendations. This report summarizing each substantive process such a request under the DOT NPRM reflects the ARAC public contact with FAA personnel procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. recommendations. concerning this proposed rulemaking. The ARAC’s proposed revision to The docket is available for public Availability of Rulemaking Documents § 33.76 would add a new requirement inspection before and after the comment You can get an electronic copy using that addresses large flocking birds closing date. If you wish to review the the Internet by: weighing more than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) and docket in person, go to the address in (1) Searching the Department of up to 3.65 kg (8 lbs). The proposal the ADDRESSES section of this preamble Transportation’s electronic Docket contains extensive common language between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Management System (DMS) Web page between part 33 and JAR–E (now CS–E). through Friday, except Federal holidays. (http://dms.dot.gov/search); However, these strengthened You may also review the docket using (2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and requirements for the certification of the the Internet at the Web address in the Policies Web page at http:// engines may not be adequate to meet the ADDRESSES section. www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or safety objective in the future, if the Privacy Act: Using the search function (3) Accessing the Government quantity of these birds or their of our docket Web site, anyone can find Printing Office’s Web page at http:// movement near airports significantly and read the comments received into www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. increases when compared to the present any of our dockets, including the name You can also get a copy by sending a situation. of the individual sending the comment request to the Federal Aviation This proposed rule may be considered (or signing the comment on behalf of an Administration, Office of Rulemaking, safety significant relative to the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41186 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

requirements of § 21.101, Designation of lbs) have occurred. However, these (2.5 lbs) with catastrophic aircraft Applicable Regulations for Changes to events are currently predicted to occur consequences has occurred for transport Type Certificates. at the rate of 1E–9 per aircraft flight category airplanes, and four for business hour, based on the power loss jet applications. Background probabilities for smaller size engines. • Multi-engine ingestions of flocking The EHWG reviewed the current This is a conservative approach, since birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have § 33.76 bird ingestion requirements, the power loss probability for this size occurred at a rate of 1.8E–8 per aircraft related advisory material, and the engine is expected to be better than the flight hour for large transport category current bird threat. It considered the smaller engines because of their aircraft. Data for business jets were industry data concerning bird threat inherently more robust design regarding incomplete and therefore no rate was trend analysis, including all reasonably foreign object damage, and because calculated. predictable changes to the current there was not enough service history • No multi-engine ingestion events threat, and if the current rule adequately data for this size engine to calculate the for bird classifications larger than 3.65 meets its stated safety objective. The probability without considering the kg (8 lbs) have occurred. working group also considered potential smaller size engine data. 6. Observations for Turbine Engines changes in the threat from increased • No multi-engine ingestion events With Inlet Throat Areas Less Than 0.40 populations of particular bird species, for bird classifications larger than 1.15 m2: • actions intended to control populations kg (2.5 lbs) have occurred. No multi-engine power loss events around airports, and flight-crew training 2. Observations for Turbine Engines with catastrophic aircraft consequences for flocking-bird recognition and With Inlet Throat Areas Between 3.5 with birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) avoidance. Finally, the working group and 3.9 m2: have occurred in service. No multi- recommended changes to § 33.76 and • No multi-engine power loss events engine power loss events involving a the corresponding JAR–E regulation to with catastrophic aircraft consequences bird mass less than 1.15 kg with address inadequacies in the current rule involving birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 catastrophic aircraft consequences have and related advisory material. lbs) have occurred. However, these occurred involving transport category The recommendations are based on events are currently predicted to occur aircraft. Of the data provided on the following: at the rate of about 1.1E–9 per aircraft business jets, three multi-engine power loss events involving a bird mass less Industry Study flight hour. • Multi-engine ingestions of flocking than 1.15 kg with catastrophic aircraft The industry study covers a thirty birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have consequences have occurred. year period of worldwide non-military occurred at a rate of 7.4E–8 per aircraft • Transport category aircraft multi- service experience of small, medium flight hour. engine ingestions of flocking birds (of and large turbofan and turbojet engines, • No multi-engine ingestion events all mass sizes) have been reported to including two, three and four engine for bird classifications larger than 3.65 occur at a rate of 3.2E–8 per engine aircraft, over 325 million aircraft kg (8 lbs) have occurred. hour. departures, and about 340 events 3. Observations for Turbine Engines • No multi-engine ingestion events involving ingestions of large flocking With Inlet Throat Areas Between 2.5 for bird classifications larger than 1.15 birds (over 1.15 kg [2.5 lbs mass]). The and 3.5 m2: kg (2.5 lbs mass) have been reported. study did not include data from aircraft • No multi-engine power loss events The study concluded that currently manufactured or flown in the former with catastrophic aircraft consequences certified engine designs might suffer a Soviet Union and Eastern European have occurred with birds larger than hazardous condition from large flocking countries, since that data was 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs). However, these events bird ingestion at a rate slightly higher unavailable. are currently predicted to occur at the than desired. This conclusion led the The study concluded that the rate of 1.5E–9 per aircraft flight hour. ARAC to recommend new certification proposed rule should address the dual- • Multi-engine ingestions of flocking test requirements to achieve the safety engine power loss hazard, since the data birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) have objective discussed below, on a fleet indicated that more-than-two-engine occurred at a rate of 2.2E–8 per aircraft wide basis. loss of power events are extremely flight hour. Proposed Rule Safety Objective improbable. The study also produced a • No multi-engine ingestion events characterization of the threat and for bird classifications larger than 1.5 kg Flocking birds may be ingested by consequences of bird ingestion. As a (3.3 lbs) have occurred. more than one engine on the aircraft result of that analysis, the ARAC 4. Observations for Turbine Engines during one encounter. The objective of identified flocking bird encounter With Inlet Throat Areas Between 1.35 this proposed rule is to define threats more severe than specifically and 2.5 m2: certification criteria such that the addressed under current § 33.76. • No multi-engine power loss events predicted rate of catastrophic aircraft Throughout the study, birds were with catastrophic aircraft consequences events due to multi-engine power loss identified by species, and an average have occurred with birds larger than resulting from multi-engine ingestion of mass for that species was assigned. All 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs). However these events flocking birds weighing between 1.15 kg references to bird mass reflect the are currently predicted to occur at the (2.5 lbs) and 3.65 kg (8 lbs) does not average mass for the species rate of 2.8E–10 per aircraft flight hour. exceed 1E–9 events per aircraft flight classification. The following are • No multi-engine ingestions of hour. A catastrophic aircraft event might summaries for different inlet throat flocking birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 occur when damage to the engines areas. lbs) have occurred (one ground event results in an unsafe condition as 1. Observations for Turbine Engines did occur after landing). specified in § 33.75; or where With Inlet Throat Areas Larger Than 3.9 5. Observations for Turbine Engines insufficient total aircraft power, thrust m2: With Inlet Throat Areas Between 0.40 or engine operability is retained to • No multi-engine power loss events and 1.35 m2: provide adequate engine run-on with catastrophic aircraft consequences • One multi-engine power loss event capability for continued safe flight and involving birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 involving a bird mass less than 1.15 kg landing of the aircraft. The study

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41187

concluded that it is not possible to two, three, and four engine airplanes in percentage of possible critical parameter demonstrate by a single test that any determining the potential new combinations so as to support meeting given engine design will experience no requirements necessary to meet the the safety objective for birds in the 1.15 more than one multi-engine failure with safety objective. kg (2.5 lbs) to 3.65 kg (8 lbs) mass range. catastrophic consequences to the aircraft Since the world fleet of large engines The EHWG used the study to due to ingestion of large flocking birds is becoming increasingly populated determine the probability of a in 1E9 hours of fleet experience. with two engine airplanes, the proposed catastrophic consequence to an aircraft However, the study did conclude that a performance requirements will become given a dual-engine power loss event, design requirement that will provide the more conservative and provide an even and to aid in defining a test that would basis for predicting that level of higher level of safety with respect to the likely achieve the aircraft level fleet reliability on a fleet wide basis is multi-engine bird ingestion threat to safety objective. They took the single possible, based on the following airplanes in service for these size engine ingestion rate and multi-engine assumptions: engines. For small and medium size • ingestion rates for birds with mass larger Current bird control standards for engines, the world fleet is than 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) from the data, airport certification will be maintained. overwhelmingly made up of twin- • along with the fleet average flight length Airport operators, air traffic engine airplanes. This situation is not of 3.2 hours for large engine controllers, and pilots will maintain likely to change over time. Therefore the installations, and 1.7 hours for small their current awareness of, and multi-engine ingestion rate data for large and medium engine installations. The mitigation proficiencies for, the bird size engines reflects the current fleet EHWG then used historical accident and ingestion threat. makeup. • Any increase in the large flocking incident service data to determine an bird multi-engine ingestion rate over the Proposed Rule Parameter Selection aircraft hazard ratio. A hazard ratio is next ten years will not exceed values The EHWG concluded that to the number of aircraft accidents (related estimated from the current bird growth establish the test conditions that satisfy to multi-engine power loss) divided by rate observed in the data study. the safety objective, a probability the number of dual-engine power loss The safety objective for this proposed analysis was needed. The probability of events. A dual-engine power loss is an rule is applied at the world fleet level. a dual-engine power loss given a dual- event where at least two engines on an The world fleet of turbine powered engine ingestion involves aircraft have a combined thrust loss airplanes is comprised of two, three, considerations of dependent and greater than the maximum thrust of one and four engine airplanes. The large independent conditions. During a flock engine. The multi-engine ingestion rate, engine historical fleet experience of encounter, both engines are traveling at average flight length and hazard ratio multi-engine ingestions is dominated by the same forward speed (that of the were analyzed to establish a three and four engine airplane data, aircraft) and will be at the same power combination of test parameters and however two engine airplanes are likely setting, creating a dependent condition. conditions that would be consistent to dominate the future fleet. The The independent conditions involve the with the safety objective. working group considered this evolving details of the actual impact of the bird Hazard Ratio situation within this rulemaking effort, with the engine. Because of the with assumptions about future fleet combination of dependent and To establish a hazard ratio, the FAA makeup playing a role in the selection independent conditions involved in the provided the EHWG with a list of possible new requirements. analysis, simple numeric relationships describing known multi-engine power With respect to bird ingestion, for determining dual-engine power loss loss events for review. The FAA data differences between these aircraft types probabilities would not be appropriate. shows a hazard ratio for twin-engine generally relate to either the multi- Therefore the working group selected a aircraft to be 0.33, and all aircraft events engine bird ingestion rate, or the Monte Carlo simulation as the best tool to be 0.07. The Aerospace Industries probability of a hazardous consequence to use for this analysis. The selection of Association (AIA) Propulsion given an actual dual-engine power loss. controlling parameters for the analysis Committee Report PC342 (submitted in For example, twin-engine airplanes will and a description of the analysis support of Continued Airworthiness have a higher probability of a hazardous techniques are discussed below. Assessment Methodology (CAAM) consequence given an actual dual- The EHWG recommendation activity) shows a hazard ratio of 0.07 for engine power loss; however their multi- identified the need to design a test that all aircraft. The Boeing supplied data for engine bird ingestion rate (and resulting is representative of in-service large high bypass ratio engines shows a power loss) is much lower than that of combinations of critical ingestion hazard ratio of 0.05 for all aircraft. the three- and four-engine airplanes. parameters. Therefore, engine ingestion Based on the above data, the EHWG Conversely, three- and four-engine parameters for actual events resulting in selected a hazard ratio of 0.18 for all airplanes, while having substantially sustained power loss were evaluated by engines. The working group found that higher rates of multi-engine bird the EHWG. The working group found this hazard ratio was appropriate for the ingestion (and resulting power loss), are that the most critical parameters that specific data set being utilized. The less likely to suffer a hazardous affect power loss are bird mass, bird working group achieved similar results consequence should a dual-engine speed, impact location, and engine when statistical confidence bands of 75 power loss actually occur. power setting. They concluded that and 90 percent for each data category The EHWG review of world fleet since testing for all possible were tabulated for comparison. This service data collected as part of the combinations of parameters is provided confidence that the value industry study indicates that the higher impractical, defining a single selected is appropriate for the fleet mix rate of multi-engine bird ingestion certification test that will support under consideration. For consistency occurrences for three- and four-engine meeting the safety objective was with this single hazard ratio approach, airplanes dominates the rate for the necessary. The working group defined the group applied a standard mix of 75- entire fleet of large engines. This this test requirement by using a Monte percent two engine and 25-percent four proposed rulemaking is therefore, based Carlo statistical analysis to show that engine applications (based on aircraft on the current world fleet distribution of the engine test covers a sufficient flights) to all engine size classes.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41188 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Monte Carlo Analysis (for example, spinner or bullet nose), 2. Bird Speed: The speed of the bird A mathematical calculation working that directs inlet air around the fan hub during the proposed test represents the backward from the safety objective into the core or fan bypass airflows. speed of the aircraft at the time of established a fleetwide multi-engine With current technology, this fairing is ingestion. Ingestions that occur at power loss rate that would satisfy the approximately one third of the diameter speeds lower than flight speeds overall safety objective of the proposed of the fan, which is approximately 11- generally result in rejected takeoffs, and rule. Then a number of Monte Carlo percent of the fan area. The data shows are usually less hazardous to the that this fairing is impacted in service aircraft. Flight speeds at altitudes where simulations were performed to identify by birds in proportion to its area. The large flocking birds are most likely a set of bird ingestion test conditions data also shows that fairings certified encountered generally range between that would, if demonstrated during type with engines to the requirements of 150 and 250 knots. Damage to an engine certification, produce a fleetwide dual- § 33.77 (Amendment 33–6) have not due to a bird ingestion is a result of a engine power loss rate that supports the caused an engine power loss from combination of parameters that include desired safety objective of the proposal. impacts due to birds of any size, ingestion speed, first stage rotor speed, The Monte Carlo simulations including large flocking birds. The and location of impact on the rotor involved entering bird strike impact current requirement of § 33.76 requires blade span. For most turbine engine energy into the first stage rotor in that the fairing demonstrate capability designs, analysis showed that a bird accordance with variations of the for 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) birds at the critical speed less than 250 knots is generally ingestion parameters determined by location at 250 knots impact speed. The more conservative. The data shows that service data probability curves. These requirements for the fairing, with the most representative aircraft speed parameters are noted below. Initial conservative allowance for the size of for encounters with large flocking birds simulations defined a parameter the critical area of the fairing, were is approximately 200 knots. The boundary created by the current and entered into the Monte Carlo analysis. working group therefore, used 200 knots proposed certification requirements The Monte Carlo analysis included as the impact speed for the test (independent of fan blade or overall impacts to the fairing as well as the fan demonstration. engine design) that would meet the blades for the overall evaluation. The 3. Target Location: The Monte Carlo safety objective. results of the Monte Carlo analysis simulations showed that a test with bird The Monte Carlo simulation used showed the safety target could be met impact at 50 percent of fan blade height random inputs of the following for inlet components meeting the or greater, in conjunction with the other parameters: test parameters described above, • current requirements of § 33.76. As a Takeoff or approach phase ingestion result, the current requirements of supports meeting the required safety probabilities established from the data § 33.76 appear to provide acceptable objective of the rule. This aspect of the study (The data study showed an even standards, and no additional rulemaking overall analysis assumes that the first 50-percent split between takeoff and is contemplated for these classes of stage blades will be more impact approach encounters). tolerant inboard of the 50-percent height • components. However, the working Engine takeoff power first stage group decided to revise the Advisory location than outboard, and that the rotor speed based on actual service data. core ingestion capability is adequately • Circular to clarify what the current Impact location on the engine fan requirements and acceptable methods of addressed under the medium bird face based on area. requirements. The test demonstration • compliance are for inlet components. Aircraft forward speed based on will establish the capability level of the actual service data. Test Conditions and Results first stage rotor at a location • The bird size based on a probability The following test conditions are representing a minimum of half of the distribution established from the data proposed based on the above analysis: exposed area of the engine. study for birds larger than 1.15 kg (2.5 1. Power, Thrust & Rotor Speeds: The 4. Run-on: The proposed run-on lbs) but less than or equal to 3.65 kg (8 first stage of rotating blades of the demonstration shows that the engine is lbs). engine is the feature of a typical turbine capable of providing the required The Monte Carlo simulations also engine most susceptible to damage from power, thrust and operability after the accounted for installation effects at the large flocking birds which can result in ingestion event. The engine must be fan blade tip (tip shielding). An loss of engine power. The working able to continue a take-off and initial installed engine is generally shielded by group determined that selecting a first climb, and perform one air turn-back, the nacelle structure, particularly the stage rotor speed that most engines were with a safe return for landing. The inlet cowl, which reduces the exposure likely to be at during takeoff would current procedures recommended by the of the fan blade tip from direct impact support meeting the safety objective. aircraft manufacturers and regulators by large birds. The reduction in the Analysis of manufacturer collected following an engine malfunction, are for exposed diameter is close to 10 percent, service data, which includes de-rated flight crews to concentrate on flying the but varies slightly with the engine thrust operations for the world fleet, aircraft without throttle manipulation, diameter. showed that this first stage rotor speed, regardless of the nature of an engine The engine structure considered in on a fleet average basis, corresponds to malfunction, until an altitude of at least the analysis consists of any inlet 90 percent of maximum rated takeoff 400 ft. is reached. Also, the aircraft structure that can be impacted by an power or thrust on an International would have to be flown so that flight ingested bird, including but not limited Standard Atmosphere (ISA) standard crews could maintain the aircraft on to inlet guide vanes, spinners, and day. Therefore, the thrust or power glide slope. Therefore, the run-on time fairings. Static engine inlet structure setting for the proposed test for the large flocking bird ingestion test that would be certified as part of the demonstration is based on first stage has been tentatively set at a minimum engine, and which could be impacted by rotor speed itself, which will be equal of 20 minutes (the same as for the a bird prior to the bird striking the first to a rotor speed that corresponds to medium bird requirements of § 33.76). rotating stage of an engine compressor engine operation at 90 percent of The working group also specified that was also evaluated in the analysis. Of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust during the test the following parameters particular interest was the fan fairing on an ISA standard day. be met: for the first minute after

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41189

ingestion with no throttle manipulation, target level of safety against the determination that the benefits of the the engine must produce at least 50- currently identified and 10-year intended regulation justify its costs. percent maximum rated takeoff thrust; projected large flocking bird threat. The Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act then the engine is to maintain no less EHWG has also submitted of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the than 50-percent maximum rated takeoff recommendations relating to the control economic impact of regulatory changes thrust for the next 13 minutes, but the of Snow and Canada geese populations on small entities. Third, the Trade throttle may be manipulated to provide and their movements near airports. The Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533) opportunity for the aircraft to establish TAEIG delivered these prohibits agencies from setting itself in a return approach attitude; then recommendations to FAA through an standards that create unnecessary a five minute period at approach thrust ARAC letter dated January 3, 2002. obstacles to the foreign commerce of the with a one minute thrust bump to United States. In developing U.S. Authority for This Rulemaking demonstrate that a flight crew could standards, this Trade Agreements Act establish approach thrust/power and Title 49 of the United States Code requires agencies to consider manipulate the throttle sufficiently to specifies the FAA’s authority to issue international standards and, where maintain glide slope during approach rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, appropriate, to be the basis of U.S. and landing. The working group also Section 106, describes the authority of standards. Fourth, the Unfunded specified a final minute where the the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. engine has to demonstrate that it can be Aviation Programs, describes in more 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a brought safely to ground idle and detail the scope of the Agency’s written assessment of the costs, benefits, shutdown. Also, given the potential for authority. and other effects of proposed or final significant engine damage and resulting We are issuing this rulemaking under rules that include a Federal mandate operating characteristics effects due to the authority described in Subtitle VII, likely to result in the expenditure by ingestion of birds of this mass, the group Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, State, local, or tribal governments, in the did not consider it reasonable to require ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that aggregate, or by the private sector, of engine re-acceleration after landing for section, Congress charges the FAA with $100 million or more annually (adjusted thrust reverser use. promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in for inflation). This portion of the 5. Bird Mass and Weight: For engines air commerce by prescribing regulations preamble summarizes the FAA’s 2 with inlet throat area larger than 3.9 m for practices, methods, and procedures analysis of the economic impacts of this (6045 sq in), a bird size of 2.5 kg (5.5 the Administrator finds necessary for NPRM. lbs) is representative of the average safety in air commerce, including The Department of Transportation Snow Goose, one of the species minimum safety standards for aircraft Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies identified as a key large flocking bird engines. This proposed rule is within and procedures for simplification, threat to transport category aircraft. The the scope of that authority because it analysis, and review of regulations. If Monte Carlo simulation analysis shows updates the existing regulations for bird the expected cost impact is so minimal that specifying a 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs) bird for ingestion. that a proposal does not warrant a full the certification requirement, tested at regulatory evaluation, this order permits the conditions specified in the proposed Paperwork Reduction Act a statement to that effect. The basis for rule, provides adequate mitigation of the The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the minimal impact must be included in risk for bird masses larger than 1.15 kg (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the the preamble, if a full regulatory (2.5 lbs), and up to 3.65 kg (8 lbs), such FAA consider the impact of paperwork evaluation of the cost and benefits is not that the proposed rule’s safety objective and other information collection prepared. Such a determination has is met. This determination covers both burdens imposed on the public. We been made for this rule. The reasoning the current and projected multi-engine have determined that there are no for that determination follows: ingestion rates. Similarly, for engines current new information collection with an inlet throat area between 3.5– requirements associated with this This NPRM would revise FAR 33.76 3.9 m2 (5425–6045 sq in), the group proposed rule. to harmonize with the current EASA found that a large flocking bird CS–E 800. A brief discussion of the demonstration with a 2.1 kg (4.63 lbs) International Compatibility concept of harmonization is presented bird would be required to meet the In keeping with U.S. obligations below. safety objective. For engines with an under the Convention on International Presently, U.S. turbine engine inlet throat area between 2.5–3.5 m2 Civil Aviation, FAA policy is to comply manufacturers must satisfy the (3875–5425 sq in), the group found that with International Civil Aviation certification requirements of both the a large flocking bird demonstration with Organization (ICAO) Standards and FAA and the European Aviation Safety a 1.85 kg (4.08 lbs) bird would likely be Recommended Practices to the Agency (EASA) to market turbine required to meet the safety objective and maximum extent practicable. The FAA engines in both the United States and for engines with an inlet throat area of has determined that there are no ICAO Europe. Meeting two different sets of 2.5 m2 (3875 sq in) or less, the data Standards and Recommended Practices certification requirements can increase review and analysis showed the current that correspond to these proposed the costs of developing turbine engines requirements of § 33.76 (for these size regulations. often with no associated safety benefits. engines) already supports meeting the In the interests of fostering international Economic Assessment, Regulatory safety objective proposed for this trade, lowering the cost of aircraft and/ Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact rulemaking. Therefore, the current or engine development, and making the Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates requirements of § 33.76 for engines with certification process more efficient, the Assessment inlet throat areas of 2.5 m2 (3875 sq in) FAA, EASA, and equipment or less would remain unchanged. Changes to Federal regulations must manufacturers have been working to undergo several economic analyses. create, to the maximum extent possible, TAEIG Recommendation First, Executive Order 12866 directs that a uniform set of certification The working group concluded that the each Federal agency shall propose or requirements accepted in both the proposed rule supports achieving the adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned United States and Europe. This

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41190 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

endeavor is referred to as engine manufacturers already sell their providing the factual basis for this ‘‘harmonization.’’ products in Europe. To do this, the determination, and the reasoning should Prior to 1970, each country had its American aircraft engine manufacturers be clear. own aviation standards. Therefore, if already voluntarily meet the European This proposed rule would affect the you wished to certify an engine in standards. Therefore, this proposed rule following U.S. aircraft engine another country it was necessary to go would have no impact on the costs of manufacturers: through that country’s certification the American aircraft engine 1. GE Infrastructure Aircraft Engines; process in addition to your own manufacturers. a Business Unit of the General Electric country’s certification process. This The expected outcome of this NPRM Co. resulted in a great deal of time and is to have a minimal cost impact with 2. The Pratt & Whitney Company; a expense if it was desired to certify an positive net benefits for the reasons Division of United Technologies Corp. engine in several countries. It was also described above. Therefore, a detailed The General Electric Company felt that it was not necessary because regulatory evaluation was not prepared. employs 300,000 people and United many of the standards were similar. The FAA requests comments with Technologies employs 209,000 people. In 1970, the Cyprus Arrangements supporting justification regarding the The Small Business Administration created the Joint Aviation Authorities FAA determination of minimal impact. (SBA) uses the North American Industry (JAA) in Europe. The JAA’s purpose was The FAA has, therefore, determined Classification System (NAICS) as to develop aviation standards that that this rulemaking action is not a updated by the Office of Management would be adopted by the individual ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as and the Budget (OMB) in 2002 or NAICS European National Aviation Authorities defined in section 3(f) of Executive 2002 to classify industries and develop (NAA’s). The standards that were Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as size standards. The classification for developed were known as the Joint defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies General Electric and United Aviation Regulations (JAR’s). However, and Procedures. In addition, the FAA Technologies is NAICS 2002 Sectors 31– the JAA had no legal status and it was has determined that this rulemaking 33 Manufacturing; Subsector 336 up to each NAA as to whether they action: (1) Would not have a significant Transportation Equipment; and Aircraft would adopt the JAR’s in whole or in economic impact on a substantial Engine and Parts Manufacturers or part. Each NAA was also responsible for number of small entities; (2) is in Number 336412. The size standard for a aviation regulation matters in its compliance with the Trade Agreements small business aircraft engine particular country. Act; and (3) would not impose an manufacturer (NAICS 2002 336412) is The successor organization to the JAA unfunded mandate on state, local, or 1,000 employees. is the European Aviation Safety Agency tribal governments, or on the private All United States engine (EASA). This organization came into sector. manufacturers who would be affected existence on July 15, 2002 by Regulation Regulatory Flexibility Determination by FAR part 33.76 exceed the SBA (EC) 1592/2002 of the European small-entity criteria of 1,000 employees. Parliament and Council. The EASA The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 Consequently, the FAA certifies that became operational for certification of (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of this rulemaking action would not have aircraft, engines, parts and appliances regulatory issuance that agencies shall a significant economic impact on a on September 28, 2003 by Commission endeavor, consistent with the objective substantial number of small entities. Regulation (EC) 1702/2003. of the rule and of applicable statutes, to The FAA solicits comments regarding When the EASA became operational it fit regulatory and informational this determination. adopted all appropriate regulations requirements to the scale of the including those that were in the process business, organizations, and Trade Impact Assessment of being revised. Because the governmental jurisdictions subject to The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 harmonization process between the regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, prohibits Federal agencies from proposed part 33.76 and the proposed the RFA requires agencies to consider establishing any standards or engaging CS–E 800 was almost completed when flexible regulatory proposals, to explain in related activities that create the EASA became operational, the the rationale for their actions, and to unnecessary obstacles to the foreign requirements of the proposed part 33.76 solicit comments. The RFA covers a commerce of the United States. and CS–E 800 are identical. CS–E 800 is wide-range of small entities, including Legitimate domestic objectives, such as now an official rule of a foreign small businesses, not-for-profit safety, are not considered unnecessary regulatory agency while the proposed organizations and small governmental obstacles. The statute also requires part 33.76 is still in the Notice of jurisdictions. consideration of international standards Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stage. Agencies must perform a review to and, where appropriate, that they be the Because CS–E 800 is an official determine whether a proposed or final basis for U.S. standards. regulation of a foreign government rule would have a significant economic Thus this proposed rule is consistent agency, according to the Trade impact on a substantial number of small with the Trade Agreements Act, as it Agreements Act of 1979, it could be entities. If the agency determines that it would use European Aviation Safety used as the basis for an American rule. would, the agency must prepare a Agency standards, as the basis for U.S. The effect of this proposed regulatory flexibility analysis as standards. rulemaking would be to reduce described in the RFA. duplication of certification effort, However, if an agency determines that Unfunded Mandates Assessment through harmonization, thereby a proposed or final rule is not expected The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act narrowing the differences between the to have a significant economic impact of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among U.S. and European regulations, because on a substantial number of small other things, to curb the practice of this proposal would create, to the entities, section 605(b) of the RFA imposing unfunded Federal mandates maximum extent possible, a single set of provides that the head of the agency on State, local, and tribal governments. certification requirements accepted in may so certify and a regulatory Title II of the Act requires each Federal the United States and Europe. It should flexibility analysis is not required. The agency to prepare a written statement be noted that the American aircraft certification must include a statement assessing the effects of any Federal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41191

mandate in a proposed or final agency PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS (3) The bird must be targeted on the rule that may result in an expenditure STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES first exposed rotating stage or stages at of $100 million or more (adjusted a blade airfoil height of not less than 50 annually for inflation) in any one year 1. The authority citation for part 33 percent measured at the leading edge. by State, local, and tribal governments, continues to read as follows: (4) Ingestion of a large flocking bird in the aggregate, or by the private sector; Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, under the conditions prescribed in this such a mandate is deemed to be a 44702, 44704. paragraph must not cause any of the ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The 2. Amend § 33.76 by revising following: FAA currently uses an inflation- paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (i) A sustained reduction of power or adjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu (a)(3), (a)(5), the heading of paragraph thrust to less than 50 percent of of $100 million. (b) introductory text, and the heading of maximum rated takeoff power or thrust This proposed rule does not contain paragraph (c) introductory text, and during the run-on segment specified such a mandate. The requirements of adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: under paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section. Title II of the Act, therefore, do not (ii) Engine shutdown during the apply. § 33.76 Bird ingestion. required run-on demonstration specified (a) General. Compliance with in paragraph (d)(5) of this section. Executive Order 13132, Federalism paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this (iii) The conditions specified in The FAA has analyzed this proposed section shall be in accordance with the paragraph (b)(3) of this section. rule under the principles and criteria of following: (5) The following test schedule must Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We (1) Except as specified in paragraph be used: have determined that this proposed rule (d) of this section, all ingestion tests (i) Ingestion followed by 1 minute would not have a substantial direct must be conducted with the engine without power lever movement. (ii) Followed by 13 minutes at not less effect on the States, on the relationship stabilized at no less than 100-percent than 50 percent of maximum rated between the national Government and takeoff power or thrust, for test day takeoff power or thrust. the States, or on the distribution of ambient conditions prior to the (iii) Followed by 2 minutes between power and responsibilities among the ingestion. In addition, the 30 and 35 percent of maximum rated various levels of government. Therefore, demonstration of compliance must account for engine operation at sea level takeoff power or thrust. this proposed rule would not have (iv) Followed by 1 minute with power federalism implications. takeoff conditions on the hottest day that a minimum engine can achieve or thrust increased from that set in Environmental Analysis maximum rated takeoff thrust or power. paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, by between 5 and 10 percent of maximum FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA * * * * * rated takeoff power or thrust. actions that are categorically excluded (3) The impact to the front of the (v) Followed by 2 minutes with power from preparation of an environmental engine from the large single bird, the or thrust reduced from that set in assessment or environmental impact single largest medium bird which can paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, by statement under the National enter the inlet, and the large flocking between 5 and 10 percent of maximum Environmental Policy Act in the bird must be evaluated. Applicants must rated takeoff power or thrust. absence of extraordinary circumstances. show that the associated components (vi) Followed by a minimum of 1 The FAA has determined this proposed when struck under the conditions minute at ground idle then engine rule qualifies for the categorical prescribed in paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) shutdown. exclusion identified in Chapter 3, of this section, as applicable, will not The durations specified are times at paragraph 312d. affect the engine to the extent that the the defined conditions. Power lever engine cannot comply with the movement between each condition will Regulations That Significantly Affect requirements of paragraphs (b)(3), (c)(6) Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use be 10 seconds or less, except that power and (d)(4) of this section. lever movements allowed within The FAA has analyzed this NPRM * * * * * paragraph (d)(5)(ii) are not limited, and under Executive Order 13211, Actions (5) Objects that are accepted by the for setting power under paragraph Concerning Regulations that Administrator may be substituted for (d)(5)(iii) of this section will be 30 Significantly Affect Energy Supply, birds when conducting the bird seconds or less. Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We ingestion tests required by paragraphs (6) Compliance with the large flocking have determined that it is not a (b), (c) and (d) of this section. bird ingestion requirements of this ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the * * * * * paragraph may also be demonstrated by: executive order because it is not a (b) Large single bird. *** (i) Incorporating the requirements of ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under (c) Small and medium flocking bird. paragraph (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this Executive Order 12866, and it is not *** section, into the large single bird test likely to have a significant adverse effect (d) Large flocking bird. An engine test demonstration specified in paragraph on the supply, distribution, or use of will be performed as follows: (b)(1) of this section; or, energy. (1) Large flocking bird engine tests (ii) Use of an engine subassembly test List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 will be performed using the bird mass at the ingestion conditions specified in and weights in Table 4, and ingested at paragraph (b)(1) of this section if: Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation a bird speed of 200 knots. (A) All components critical to Safety, Safety (2) Prior to the ingestion, the engine complying with the requirements of must be stabilized at no less than the The Proposed Amendment paragraph (d) of this section are mechanical rotor speed of the first included in the subassembly test; and In consideration of the foregoing, the exposed stage or stages that, on a (B) The components of paragraph Federal Aviation Administration standard day, would produce 90 percent (d)(6)(ii)(A) of this section are installed proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, of the sea level static maximum rated in a representative engine for a run-on Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: takeoff power or thrust. demonstration in accordance with

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41192 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this (C) The dynamic effects that would (7) Applicants must show that an section; except that section (d)(5)(i) is have been experienced during a full unsafe condition will not result if any deleted and section (d)(5)(ii) must be 14 engine ingestion test can be shown to be engine operating limit is exceeded minutes in duration after the engine is negligible with respect to meeting the during the run-on period. started and stabilized; and requirements of paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) of this section.

TABLE 4 TO § 33.76.—LARGE FLOCKING BIRD MASS AND WEIGHT

Engine inlet throat area Bird quantity Bird mass and weight m2 (sq in) kg (lbs)

A <2.50 (3875 sq in) ...... None 2.50 (3875 sq in) ≤A <3.50 (5425 sq in) ...... 1 1.85 kg (4.08 lbs). 3.50 (5425 sq in) ≤A <3.90 (6045 sq in) ...... 1 2.10 kg (4.63 lbs). 3.90 (6045 sq in) ≤A ...... 1 2.50 kg (5.51 lbs).

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, comment period will be extended until docket and made available on the 2006. September 5, 2006. Internet. If you submit an electronic John J. Hickey, ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, comment, EPA recommends that you Director, Aircraft Certification Service. identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– include your name and other contact [FR Doc. E6–11373 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] OAR–2003–0130, by one of the information in the body of your BILLING CODE 4910–13–P following methods: comment and with any disk or CD-ROM • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow you submit. If EPA cannot read your the on-line instructions for submitting comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comments. • EPA may not be able to consider your AGENCY E-mail: [email protected]. • Fax: 202–566–1741. comment. Electronic files should avoid 40 CFR Part 82 • Mail: Docket #, Air and Radiation the use of special characters, any form Docket and Information Center, U.S. of encryption, and be free of any defects [EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0130; FRL–8200–1] Environmental Protection Agency, Mail or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA RIN 2060–AL90 Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Docket Center homepage at http:// Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: • Hand Delivery: Docket #EPA–HQ– www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Minor Amendments to the Regulations OAR–2003–0130, Air and Radiation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Implementing the Allowance System Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Cindy Axinn Newberg, EPA, for Controlling HCFC Production, Avenue NW., Room B108, Mail Code Stratospheric Protection Division, Office Import and Export 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Such of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air deliveries are only accepted during the and Radiation (6205J), 1200 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Docket’s normal hours of operation, and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Agency (EPA). special arrangements should be made Washington, DC 20460, (202) 343–9729, ACTION: Proposed rule. for deliveries of boxed information. [email protected]. Instructions: Direct your comments to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1) Under SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– the Montreal Protocol on Substances the current regulations governing the 0130. EPA’s policy is that all comments that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol), production and trade of certain ozone- received will be included in the public as amended, the U.S. and other depleting substances to address issues docket without change and may be industrialized countries that are Parties concerning the export of previously made available online at to the Protocol have agreed to limit imported material, heels, the exemption www.regulations.gov, including any production and consumption of allowance petition process for HCFC– personal information provided, unless hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and 141b for military and space vehicle the comment includes information to phase out consumption in a step-wise applications, and the definition for claimed to be Confidential Business fashion over time, culminating in a ‘‘importer.’’ We are proposing these Information (CBI) or other information complete phaseout in 2030. Title VI of minor adjustments to our regulations in whose disclosure is restricted by statute. the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 response to requests from the regulated Do not submit information that you (CAAA) authorizes EPA to promulgate community, to ensure equitable consider to be CBI or otherwise regulations to manage the consumption treatment of stakeholders, and to reduce protected through www.regulations.gov and production of HCFCs until the total burden where the integrity of the or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web phaseout in 2030. EPA promulgated requirements can still be sufficiently site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, final regulations establishing an maintained. These proposed which means EPA will not know your allowance tracking system for HCFCs on amendments appear in the ‘‘Rules and identity or contact information unless January 21, 2003 (68 FR 2820). These Regulations’’ section of this Federal you provide it in the body of your regulations were amended on June 17, Register as a direct final rule. comment. If you send an e-mail 2004 (69 FR 34024) to ensure U.S. DATES: Comments must be submitted by comment directly to EPA without going compliance with the Montreal Protocol. August 21, 2006, or by September 5, through www.regulations.gov your e- Today’s proposed action would amend 2006 if a hearing is requested by July 31, mail address will be automatically aspects of the regulations that relate to 2006. If requested, a hearing will be captured and included as part of the exports of previously imported material, held on August 4, 2006 and the comment that is placed in the public the import of HCFC heels, the HCFC–

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41193

141b exemption allowance petition For further information, please see the • Make sure to submit your process, and the definition of information provided in the direct final comments by the comment period ‘‘importer.’’ We are proposing these action that is located in the ‘‘Rules and deadline identified. Regulations’’ section of this Federal minor adjustments to our regulations in Table of Contents response to requests from the regulated Register. community, to ensure equitable (2) Tips for Preparing Your I. Regulated Entities treatment of stakeholders, and to reduce Comments. When submitting comments, II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory burden where the integrity of the remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket Planning and Review requirements can still be sufficiently number and other identifying B. Paperwork Reduction Act maintained. information (subject heading, Federal C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Regulatory In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Register date and page number). Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by section of this Federal Register, we are • Follow directions—The agency may the Small Business Regulatory issuing these amendments as a direct ask you to respond to specific questions Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 final rule without prior proposal or organize comments by referencing a (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. because we view this as a non- Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act controversial action and anticipate no or section number. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation adverse comment. We have explained • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute and Coordination With Indian Tribal our reasons for this action in the Governments preamble to the direct final rule. If we language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of receive no adverse comment, we will Children From Environmental Health & not take further action on this proposed provide any technical information and/ or data that you used. Safety Risks rule. If we receive adverse comment, we • If you estimate potential costs or H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That will withdraw the direct final rule, or burdens, explain how you arrived at Significantly Affect Energy Supply, particular provisions of the rule, and the your estimate in sufficient detail to Distribution, or Use rule or the particular provisions will not allow for it to be reproduced. I. National Technology Transfer and take effect. We would address all public • Provide specific examples to Advancement Act comments in any subsequent final rule illustrate your concerns, and suggest I. Regulated Entities based on this proposed rule. We will not alternatives. institute a second comment period on • Explain your views as clearly as These minor amendments to the this action. Any parties interested in possible, avoiding the use of profanity HCFC allowance allocation system commenting must do so at this time. or personal threats. would affect the following categories:

NAICS Category code SIC code Examples of regulated entities

Chlorofluorocarbon gas manufacturing ...... 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturers; Dichlorofluoroethane manufacturers Chlorodifluoroethane manufacturers. Chlorofluorocarbon gas importers ...... 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane importers; Dichlorofluoroethane importers; Chlorodifluoroethane importers. Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters ...... 325120 2869 Chlorodifluoromethane exporters; Dichlorofluoroethane exporters; Chlorodifluoroethane exporters. Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing ...... 326140 3086 Plastics foam Products (Polystyrene Foam Products). Urethane and Other Foam Product (Except Polystyrene) 326150 3086 Insulation and cushioning, foam plastics (except poly- Manufacturing. styrene) manufacturing.

This table is not intended to be II. Statutory and Executive Order environment, public health or safety, or exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Reviews State, local, or tribal government or communities; for readers regarding entities likely to be A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory regulated by this action. This table lists Planning and Review (2) Create a serious inconsistency or the types of entities that EPA is now otherwise interfere with an action taken aware could potentially be regulated by Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR or planned by another agency; this action. Other types of entities not 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency (3) Materially alter the budgetary listed in this table could also be must determine whether this regulatory impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, affected. To determine whether your action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore or loan programs or the rights and facility, company, business subject to OMB review and the obligations of recipients thereof; or organization, or other entity is regulated requirements of the Executive Order. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues by this action, you should carefully The Order defines a ‘‘significant’’ arising out of legal mandates, the examine these regulations. If you have regulatory action as one that is likely to President’s priorities, or the principles questions regarding the applicability of result in a rule that may: set forth in the Executive Order. this action to a particular entity, consult (1) Have an annual effect on the It has been determined that this the person listed in the FOR FURTHER economy of $100 million or more, or proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant INFORMATION CONTACT section. adversely affect in a material way the regulatory action’’ within the meaning economy, a sector of the economy, of the Executive Order and is therefore productivity, competition, jobs, the not subject to OMB review.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41194 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

B. Paperwork Reduction Act to review instructions; develop, acquire, a regulatory flexibility analysis of any install, and utilize technology and rule subject to notice and comment This action does not impose any new systems for the purposes of collecting, rulemaking requirements under the information collection burden. Instead, validating, and verifying information, Administrative Procedure Act or any this NPRM proposes to decrease the processing and maintaining other statute unless the agency certifies frequency of one specific report and information, and disclosing and limit the range of types of containers that the rule will not have a significant providing information; adjust the economic impact on a substantial subject to a specific regulatory existing ways to comply with any requirement. The Office of Management number of small entities. Small entities previously applicable instructions and include small businesses, small and Budget (OMB) has previously requirements; train personnel to be able organizations, and small governmental approved the information collection to respond to a collection of jurisdictions. requirements contained in the existing information; search data sources; regulations at 40 CFR part 82 subpart A complete and review the collection of For purposes of assessing the impacts under the provisions of the Paperwork information; and transmit or otherwise of today’s rule on small entities, small Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. disclose the information. An agency entity is defined as: (1) A small business and has assigned OMB control number may not conduct or sponsor, and a as defined by the NAICS codes below 2060–0498 (EPA ICR No. 2014.02). A person is not required to respond to a (2) a small governmental jurisdiction copy of the OMB approved Information collection of information unless it that is a government of a city, county, Collection Request (ICR) may be displays a currently valid OMB control town, school district or special district obtained from the Collection Strategies number. The OMB control numbers for with a population of less than 50,000; Division; U.S. Environmental Protection EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed and (3) a small organization that is any Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania in 40 CFR part 9. not-for-profit enterprise which is Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by independently owned and operated and calling (202) 566–1672. Burden means C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as the total time, effort, or financial Amended by the Small Business is not dominant in its field. resources expended by persons to Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. provide information to or for a Federal The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) agency. This includes the time needed generally requires an agency to prepare

NAICS small business size standard Category NAICS code SIC code (in number of employees or millions of dollars)

1. Chemical and Allied Products, NEC ...... 424690 5169 100 2. Chlorofluorocarbon gas exporters ...... 325120 2869 100

After considering the economic section 205 of the UMRA generally any one year. The provisions in this impacts of today’s direct final rule on requires EPA to identify and consider a proposed rule fulfill the obligations of small entities, I certify that this action reasonable number of regulatory the United States under the will not have a significant economic alternatives and adopt the least costly, international treaty, The Montreal impact on a substantial number of small most cost-effective or least burdensome Protocol on Substances that Deplete the entities. This direct final rule will not alternative that achieves the objectives Ozone Layer, as well as those impose any requirements on small of the rule, unless the Agency explains requirements set forth by Congress in entities. None of the entities affected by why this alternative is not selected or the Clean Air Act. Viewed as a whole, this rule are considered small as defined the selection of this alternative is all of these proposed amendments do by the size standards listed above. inconsistent with law. not create a Federal mandate resulting Section 203 of the UMRA requires the in costs of $100 million or more in any D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Agency to establish a plan for obtaining one year for State, local and tribal Title II of the Unfunded Mandates input from and informing, educating, governments, in the aggregate, or for the Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public and advising any small governments private sector. Thus, this proposed rule Law 104–4, establishes requirements for that may be significantly or uniquely is not subject to the requirements of Federal agencies to assess the effects of affected by the rule. Section 204 of the sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA their regulatory actions on State, local UMRA requires the Agency to develop has also determined that this proposal and tribal government and the private a process to allow elected state, local, contains no regulatory requirements that sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, and tribal government officials to might significantly or uniquely affect EPA generally must prepare a written provide input in the development of any small governments; therefore, EPA is statement, including a cost-benefit proposal containing a significant not required to develop a plan with analysis, for proposed and final rules Federal intergovernmental mandate. regard to small governments under with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may EPA has determined that this section 203. Finally, because this result in expenditures by State, local proposed rule does not contain a proposal does not contain a significant and tribal governments, in the aggregate, Federal mandate that may result in intergovernmental mandate, the Agency or by the private sector, of $100 million expenditures of $100 million or more by is not required to develop a process to or more in any one year. If a written State, local and tribal governments, in obtain input from elected state, local, statement is required under section 202, the aggregate, or by the private sector, in and tribal officials under section 204.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41195

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism tribal officials in the development of Heenan, PJ. ‘‘Does intermittent sun Executive Order 13132, entitled regulatory policies that have tribal exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, implications.’’ This proposed rule does case control study in Western 1999), requires EPA to develop an not have tribal implications, as specified Australia,’’ Int J Cancer 1995; 60: 489– accountable process to ensure in Executive Order 13175. This proposal 94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB, Bajdik, ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State does not significantly or uniquely affect CD, et al. ‘‘Sunlight exposure, and local officials in the development of the communities of Indian tribal pigmentary factors, and risk of regulatory policies that have federalism governments. It does not impose any nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have enforceable duties on communities of carcinoma.’’ Arch Dermatol 1995; 131: federalism implications’’ is defined in Indian tribal governments. Thus, 157–63; (7) Armstrong, DK. ‘‘How sun the Executive Order to include Executive Order 13175 does not apply exposure causes skin cancer: an regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct to this rule. epidemiological perspective,’’ Prevention of Skin Cancer. 2004. 89– effects on the States, on the relationship G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 116. The public is invited to submit or between the national government and Children From Environmental Health identify peer-reviewed studies and data, the States, or on the distribution of and Safety Risks power and responsibilities among the of which EPA may not be aware, that various levels of government.’’ Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of assessed results of early life exposure to Under Section 6 of Executive Order Children from Environmental Health UV radiation. 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, This proposal concerns minor that has federalism implications, that April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: changes to the existing regulatory imposes substantial direct compliance (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically regime for the class II controlled costs, and that is not required by statute, significant’’ as defined under Executive substances. Theses minor changes are unless the Federal government provides Order 12866, and (2) concerns an not expected to increase the impacts on the funds necessary to pay the direct environmental health or safety risk that children’s health from stratospheric compliance costs incurred by State and EPA has reason to believe may have a ozone depletion. disproportionate effect on children. If local governments, or EPA consults with H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That State and local officials early in the the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the Significantly Affect Energy Supply, process of developing the regulation. Distribution, or Use EPA also may not issue a regulation that environmental health or safety effects of has federalism implications and that the planned rule on children, and This proposed rule is not a preempts State law, unless the Agency explain why the planned regulation is ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in consults with State and local officials preferable to other potentially effective Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions early in the process of developing the and reasonably feasible alternatives Concerning Regulations That regulation. considered by the Agency. While this Significantly Affect Energy Supply, This proposed rule does not have proposal is not subject to the Executive Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May federalism implications. It will not have Order because it is not economically 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant substantial direct effects on the States, significant as defined in E.O. 12866, we regulatory action under Executive Order on the relationship between the national nonetheless have reason to believe that 12866. the environmental health or safety risk government and the States, or on the I. The National Technology Transfer addressed by this action may have a distribution of power and and Advancement Act responsibilities among the various disproportionate effect on children. levels of government, as specified in Depletion of stratospheric ozone results Section 12(d) of the National Executive Order 13132. Today’s in greater transmission of the sun’s Technology Transfer and Advancement proposal is expected to primarily affect ultraviolet (UV) radiation to the earth’s Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law producers, importers and exporters of surface. The following studies describe 104–113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 HCFCs. Thus, the requirements of the effects on children of excessive note) directs EPA to use voluntary section 6 of the Executive Order do not exposure to UV radiation: (1) consensus standards in its regulatory apply. In the spirit of Executive Order Westerdahl J, Olsson H, Ingvar C. ‘‘At activities unless to do so would be 13132, and consistent with EPA policy what age do sunburn episodes play a inconsistent with applicable law or to promote communications between crucial role for the development of otherwise impractical. Voluntary EPA and State and local governments, malignant melanoma,’’ Eur J Cancer consensus standards are technical EPA specifically solicits comment on 1994: 30A: 1647–54; (2) Elwood JM standards (e.g., materials specifications, this proposed rule from State and local Japson J. ‘‘Melanoma and sun exposure: test methods, sampling procedures, and officials. an overview of published studies,’’ Int business practices) that are developed or J Cancer 1997; 73:198–203; (3) adopted by voluntary consensus F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Armstrong BK, ‘‘Melanoma: childhood standards bodies. The NTTAA directs and Coordination With Indian Tribal or lifelong sun exposure,’’ In: Grobb JJ, EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, Governments Stern RS Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, explanations when the Agency decides Executive Order 13175, entitled eds. ‘‘Epidemiology, causes and not to use available and applicable ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with prevention of skin diseases,’’ 1st ed. voluntary consensus standards. This Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR London, England: Blackwell Science, proposed rulemaking does not involve 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 1997: 63–6; (4) Whieman D., Green A. technical standards. Therefore, EPA is to develop an accountable process to ‘‘Melanoma and Sunburn,’’ Cancer not considering the use of any voluntary ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Causes Control, 1994: 5:564–72; (5) consensus standards.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41196 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Chlorofluorocarbons, Exports, Dated: July 13, 2006. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Imports, Stephen L. Johnson, Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping Administrator. Administrative practice and procedure, requirements. [FR Doc. E6–11531 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Air pollution control, Chemicals, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:38 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL 41197

Notices Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 139

Thursday, July 20, 2006

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Abstract: The mission of National 4– Congress or the Administration, on rural contains documents other than rules or H Headquarters; Cooperative State versus urban outreach, enrollment by proposed rules that are applicable to the Research, Education, and Extension race, youth participation in leadership, public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Service; United States Department of community service, etc. It also is used committee meetings, agency decisions and Agriculture (USDA); is to advance to determine market share or percentage rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency knowledge for agriculture, the of the youth of each state by age and statements of organization and functions are environment, human health and well- place of residence who are enrolled in examples of documents appearing in this being, and communities by creating the 4–H youth development program. section. opportunities for youth. 4–H is a The annual 4–H Youth Enrollment complex national organization, led by Report also allows oversight of all National 4ndash;H Headquarters, reasonable efforts by staff and DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CSREES, USDA, with hundreds of volunteers to reach underserved and educational curricula, activities, and minority groups. Information also is Cooperative State Research, events for youth ages 5 to 17. Programs available at http://www.national4- Education, and Extension Service originate at 105 land-grant universities hheadquarters.gov/library/4h_stats.htm. (LGUs), and local programs are Estimate of Burden: The hour burden Notice of Intent To Establish a New conducted and managed by some 4,000 Information Collection estimates were calculated based on a professional Extension staff in 3,050 survey of respondents conducted by AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, counties, with nearly 7 million youth CSREES for the purpose of obtaining Education, and Extension Service, enrolled each year. Nearly 600,000 clearance from the Office of USDA. volunteer leaders work directly with the Management and Budget in compliance ACTION: Notice and request for 4–H youth. with the Paperwork Reduction Act. comments. The 1914 Smith-Lever Act created the Estimated Number of Respondents: Cooperative Extension System (CES) of 56. SUMMARY: In accordance with the the LGUs and their Federal partner, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Extension Service, now the Cooperative Estimated Number of Responses per U.S.C. chap. 35) and the Office of State Research, Education, and Respondent: 1. Management and Budget (OMB) Extension Service (CSREES), USDA. 4– Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR H was already well-established, and Estimated Total Annual Burden on 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice became the first operating part of the Respondents: 56 hours. announces the Cooperative State new extension work. The Smith-Lever Comments: Comments are invited on: Research, Education, and Extension Act stipulated that ‘‘It shall be the duty (a) Whether the proposed collection of Service’s (CSREES) intention to request of said colleges, annually, on or about information is necessary for the proper approval to establish a new information the first day of January, to make to the performance of the functions of the collection in support of the 4–H Youth Governor of the State in which it is agency, including whether the Enrollment Report. located a full and detailed report of its information will have practical utility; DATES: Written comments on this notice operations in extension work as defined (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate must be received by September 18, 2006 in this Act * * * a copy of which report of the burden of the proposed collection to be assured of consideration. shall be sent to the Secretary of of information, including the validity of Comments received after that date will Agriculture.’’ As a result of this the methodology and assumptions used; be considered to the extent practicable. requirement, annually each county (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, sends their state 4–H office an electronic ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and clarity of the information to be aggregated summary of their 4–H and requests for copies of this collected; and (d) ways to minimize the enrollment. information collection by any of the burden of the collection of information Information collected in the 4–H following methods: E-mail: on those who are to respond, including Youth Enrollment Report includes [email protected]; Fax: 202– through the use of appropriate youth enrollment totals by delivery 720–0857; Mail: USDA/CSREES, STOP automated, electronic, mechanical, or mode, youth enrollment totals by type 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., other technological collection of 4–H activity, youth enrollment totals Washington, DC 20250–2216; Hand techniques or other forms of information by school grade, youth enrollment totals Delivery/Courier: 800 9th Street, SW., technology. by gender, youth enrollment totals by Room 4217, Washington, DC 20024. All responses to this notice will be place of residence, adult volunteer summarized and included in the request FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: totals, youth volunteer totals, and youth to OMB for approval. All comments will Jason Hitchcock, E-Government Program enrollment totals by race and ethnicity. become a matter of public record. Leader, Information Systems and Need and Use of the Information: The Technology Management, 202–720– Annual 4–H Enrollment Report is the Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of 4343. principal means by which the 4–H July, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: movement can keep track of its progress, Gale Buchanan, Title: 4–H Youth Enrollment Report. as well as emerging needs, potential Under Secretary, Research, Education, and OMB Number: 0524–New. problems and opportunities. Economics. Type of Request: Intent to request and The information from this collection [FR Doc. E6–11535 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] establish an information collection. is used to report, as requested by the BILLING CODE 3410–22–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41198 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Comments were due by June 12, 2006. Suspended Investigation; Opportunity GIPSA received one comment from an to Request Administrative Review, 71 Grain Inspection, Packers and elevator manager in Lamar County, FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On Stockyards Administration supporting Intercontinental for February 28, 2006, in accordance with [06–TX–S] designation. 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), certain GIPSA evaluated all available respondents requested a review of the Designation for the State of Texas Area information regarding the designation antidumping duty order on certain criteria in Section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and and, according to Section 7(f)(l)(B), In addition, on February 28, 2006, the Stockyards Administration, USDA. determined that Intercontinental is petitioner1 also requested an ACTION: Notice. better able to provide official services in administrative review for numerous the geographic area specified in the Ecuadorian exporters of subject SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers March 13, 2006, Federal Register, for merchandise in accordance with 19 CFR and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) which it applied. Intercontinental was 351.213(b)(1). announces that Intercontinental Grain previously designated for 18 months In April 2006, the Department Inspections, Inc.’s (Intercontinental), only, effective April 10, 2006, and initiated an administrative review for 71 designation is amended to provide terminating September 30, 2007. companies and we requested that each official inspection services under the Intercontinental’s designation will be provide data on the quantity and value United States Grain Standards Act in amended to include the additional of its exports of subject merchandise to Montague, Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, Texas counties. Interested persons may the United States during the period of Lamar, Red River, Young, Stephen, and obtain official services by calling review (POR). These companies are Eastland Counties in Texas. Intercontinental headquarters in listed in the Department’s notice of DATES: Effective Date: August 21, 2006. Saginaw, Texas at 817–306–8900. initiation. See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the ADDRESSES: USDA, GIPSA, Karen Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k. Guagliardo, Review Branch Chief, Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Compliance Division, STOP 3604, Room David R. Shipman, Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 1647–S, 1400 Independence Avenue, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Ecuador, India and Thailand, 71 FR SW., Washington, DC 20250–3604. Packers and Stockyards Administration. 17819 (April 7, 2006) (Notice of Initiation). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. E6–11485 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Between May 24, 2006, and July 6, Karen Guagliardo at 202–720–7312, e- BILLING CODE 3410–EN–P 2006, the requests for administrative mail [email protected]. review were withdrawn for 46 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This companies, in accordance with 19 CFR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE action has been reviewed and 351.213(d)(1). These companies are: determined not to be a rule or regulation International Trade Administration 1) Agricola e Industrial Ecuaplantation; as defined in Executive Order 12866 2) Alquimia Marina S.A.; 3) Babychic and Departmental Regulation 1512–1; [A–331–802] SA; 4) Brimon, S.A.; 5) Dunci S.A.; 6) therefore, the Executive Order and Eculine; 7) Edpacif; 8) El Rosario Departmental Regulation do not apply Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp (ERSA) S.A.; 9) Empacadora del Pacifico to this action. from Ecuador; Partial Rescission of S.A. (Edpacif S.A.); 10) Empacadora In the March 13, 2006, Federal Antidumping Duty Administrative Dufer Cia. Ltda.; 11) Empacadora Grupo Register (71 FR 12675), GIPSA asked Review Gran Mar Empagran S.A.; 12) persons interested in providing official AGENCY: Import Administration, Empacadora Nacional C.A.; 13) services in Clay, Montague, Cooke, International Trade Administration, Empacadora Bilbo S.A. (Bilbosa); 14) Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Red River, Department of Commerce. Empagran; 15) Estar C.A.; 16) Young, Stephen, and Eastland Counties Exporklore, S.A.; 17) Exportadora EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006. in Texas to submit an application for Bananera Noboa; 18) Exports del designation by April 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oceano ; 19) Gondi S.A.; 20) Industrial There were two applicants for the David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, Pesquera Santa Priscila SA; 21) Texas area: Enid Grain Inspection AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscilla; 22) Company, Inc. (Enid) and Administration, International Trade Inepexa Inc.; 23) Karpicorp S.A.; 24) Intercontinental Grain Inspections Inc. Administration, U.S. Department of Marecuador Co Ltda.; 25) Marisco; 26) (Intercontinental); both currently Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Mariscos de Chupadores Chupamar; 27) designated official agencies. Enid Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Mariscos del Ecuador c.l. Marecuador; applied for designation to provide telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 28) Mariscos del Ecuador Marecuador official services in Clay, Montague, 3773, respectively. Co.; 29) Negocios Industriales Real Cooke, and Grayson Counties. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIRSA S.A.; 30) Novapesca SA; 31) Intercontinental applied for all of the Background Oceanmundo S.A.; 32) Oceanpro S.A.; counties announced in the March 13, 33) Operadora y Procesadora de 2006, Federal Register. GIPSA asked for On February 1, 2006, the Department Products Marinos OMARSA S.A.; 34) comments on Enid and Intercontinental of Commerce (the Department) Oyerly SA; 35) P.C. Seafood SA; 36) in the May 12, 2006, Federal Register published in the Federal Register a Peslasa S.A.; 37) Phillips Seafood of (71 FR 27672). The geographic area notice of opportunity to request an Ecuador S.A.; 38) Procesadora del Rio specified in the March 13, 2006 Federal administrative review of the Proriosa SA; 39) Procesadora Del Rio Register notice erroneously included antidumping duty order on certain S.A. Proriosa; 40) Proriosa sa Clay County. This county is currently frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador Procesadora del Rio SA; 41) Seafood assigned to another official agency and for the period August 4, 2004, through therefore is not open for designation in January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or 1 The petitioner in this proceeding is the Ad Hoc this action. Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Shrimp Trade Action Committee.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41199

Padre Aguirre; 42) Sociedad Nacional de Seafood of Ecuador S.A.; Procesadora Alimentos Ltda. (CIDA) and Produmar Galapagos C.A.; 43) Soitgar; 44) Tecnica del Rio Proriosa SA; Procesadora Del Cia Exportadora de Produtos Do Mar & Comercio de la Pesca Teco; 45) Rio S.A. Proriosa; Proriosa sa (Produmar) requested a review of the Transmarina C. A.; and 46) Unilines Procesadora del Rio SA; Seafood Padre antidumping duty order on certain Transport System. Section 351.213(d)(1) Aguirre; Sociedad Nacional de frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil in of the Department’s regulations requires Galapagos C.A.; Soitgar; Tecnica & accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). that the Secretary rescind an Comercio de la Pesca Teco; Transmarina Also on February 28, 2006, the administrative review if a party C. A.; and Unilines Transport System. petitioner 1 requested an administrative requesting a review withdraws the Therefore, because no other interested review for numerous Brazilian exporters request within 90 days of the date of party requested a review for these of subject merchandise in accordance publication of the notice of initiation. companies, in accordance with 19 CFR with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). Therefore, because all requests for 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this In April 2006, the Department administrative reviews were timely review with respect to these companies. initiated an administrative review for 50 withdrawn for the companies listed Additionally, as noted above, we are companies and requested that each above, in accordance with 19 CFR rescinding the review of Jorge Luis. provide data on the quantity and value 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this This notice is published in of its exports of subject merchandise to review with regard to these companies. accordance with section 751 of the the United States during the period of In addition, the petitioner requested a Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 review (POR). These companies are review of a single company twice under CFR 351.213(d)(4). listed in the Department’s notice of two different names: Jorge Luis and Dated: July 14, 2006. initiation. See Notice of Initiation of Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez. According to Stephen J. Claeys, Administrative Reviews of the information on the record of this Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain proceeding (i.e., the company’s Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, submission on May 9, 2006), these two Ecuador, India and Thailand, 71 FR [FR Doc. E6–11546 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] company names refer to the same 17819 (April 7, 2006) (Notice of company, and the correct legal name for BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S Initiation). this company is Jorge Luis Benitez Between June 28, 2006, and July 6, Lopez. We clarify that we will include DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 2006, the petitioner withdrew its this company in our administrative requests for administrative review for review only once. Therefore, because International Trade Administration the following 34 companies: 2 (1) Acarau the company identified above will be Pesca Distr. De Pesc. Imp e Exp Ltda.; included in this administrative review, [A–351–838] (2) Aquacultura Fortaleza Aquafort SA; and because keeping the incorrect (3) Aquamaris Aquaculture SA; (4) company name with the list of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil; Partial Rescission of Camanor—Produtos Marinhos Ltda.; (5) companies included in this Camaros do Brasil Ltda.; (6) Camexim administrative review creates Antidumping Duty; Administrative Review Captura Mec Exports Imports; (7) Campi administrative difficulties, we are Camaroa do Piaui Ltda.; (8) CIDA- rescinding the review of Jorge Luis. AGENCY: Import Administration, Central de Industrializacao E Partial Rescission of Review International Trade Administration, Distribucao de Alimentos Ltda./ As noted above, the petitioner and Department of Commerce. Produmar-Cia Exportadora de Produtos certain respondents withdrew their DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2006. do Mar; (9) Cina Companhia Nordeste requests for an administrative review for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: de Aquicultura E Alimentacao; (10) the following companies within the Rebecca Trainor or Katherine Johnson, Empaf—Empresa de Armazenagem time limits set forth in 19 CFR AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Frigorifica Ltda.; (11) Empresa de 351.213(d)(1): Agricola e Industrial Administration, International Trade Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda.; (12) Ecuaplantation; Alquimia Marina S.A.; Administration, U.S. Department of Ipesca; (13) Juno Ind & Com de Babychic SA; Brimon, S.A.; Dunci S.A.; Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Pescados; (14) Maricultura Netuno SA; Eculine; Edpacif ; El Rosario (ERSA) Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; (15) Maricultura Rio Grandense; (16) S.A.; Empacadora del Pacifico S.A. telephone: (202) 482–4007 or (202) 482– Maricultura Tropical; (17) Marine (Edpacif S.A.); Empacadora Dufer Cia. 4929, respectively. Maricultura do Nordeste; (18) MM Ltda.; Empacadora Grupo Gran Mar SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Monteiro Pesca E Exportacao Ltda.; (19) Empagran S.A.; Empacadora Nacional Mucuripe Pesca Ltda., Epp.; (20) Norte C.A.; Empacadora Bilbo S.A. (Bilbosa); Background Pesca; (21) Ortico; (22) Pesqueira Empagran; Estar C.A.; Exporklore, S.A.; On February 1, 2006, the Department Maguary Ltda.; (23) Pesqueira Maguary Exportadora Bananera Noboa; Exports of Commerce (the Department) Ltda.; (24) Potiguar Alimentos do Mar del Oceano; Gondi S.A.; Industrial published in the Federal Register a Ltda.; (25) Potipora Aqualcultura Ltda.; Pesquera Santa Priscila SA; Industrial notice of opportunity to request an (26) Produvale Produtos do Vale Ltda.; Pesquera Santa Priscilla; Inepexa Inc.; administrative review of the (27) Qualimar Comercio Importacao E Karpicorp S.A.; Marecuador Co Ltda.; antidumping duty order on certain Exportacao Ltda.; (28) Secom Marisco; Mariscos de Chupadores frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil Aquicultura Comercio E Industria SA; Chupamar; Mariscos del Ecuador c.l. for the period August 4, 2004, through (29) Seafarm Criacao E Comercio de Marecuador; Mariscos del Ecuador January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Produtos Aquaticos Ltda.; (30) Sohagro Marecuador Co.; Negocios Industriales Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Marina do Nordeste SA; (31) SM Real NIRSA S.A.; Novapesca SA; Suspended Investigation; Opportunity Oceanmundo S.A.; Oceanpro S.A.; to Request Administrative Review, 71 1 The petitioner in this proceeding is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. Operadora y Procesadora de Products FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On 2 Duplicate company names in the petitioner’s Marinos OMARSA S.A.; Oyerly SA; P.C. February 28, 2006, Central de request for review and request to withdraw are only Seafood SA; Peslasa S.A.; Phillips Industrializacao E Distribuicao De listed once.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41200 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Trading Industria E Comercio Ltda.; (32) through January 31, 2006. See (Thailand) Limited (Findus); (27) Frozen Tecmares Maricultura Ltda.; (33) Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Marine Products Co., Ltd. (Frozen Terracor Tdg Exp. E Imp. Ltda.; and (34) Order, Finding, or Suspended Marine Products); (28) Good Fortune Torquato Pontes Pescados. On July 5, Investigation; Opportunity to Request Cold Storage Co., Ltd. (Good Fortune); 2006, CIDA withdrew its request for Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 (29) Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. (64/2 Moo review. Section 351.213(d)(1) of the (Feb. 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, in 5, Chana-Pattani Road, T. Bana, Amphur Department’s regulations requires that accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Chana, Songkhla, Thailand) 2 (Haitai the Secretary rescind an administrative certain respondents requested a review Songkla); (30) Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. review if a party requesting a review of the antidumping duty order on (946 Room 902 9th Floor, Dusit Thani withdraws the request within 90 days of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Building, Rama 4 Road, Silom, Bangrak, the date of publication of the notice of Thailand. In addition, on February 28, Bangkok 10500 Thailand) (Haitai initiation. 2006, the petitioner 1 also requested an Bangkok); (31) Ham Intl (Ham); (32) administrative review for numerous Heng Seafood Limited Partnership Partial Rescission of Review Thailand exporters of subject (Heng); (33) Heritrade; (34) High Way We are rescinding this review with merchandise in accordance with 19 CFR International Co., Ltd. (High Way); (35) respect to the 34 companies listed above 351.213(b)(2)(1). Instant Produce; (36) Inter-Pacific in accordance with 19 CFR In April 2006, the Department Marine Products Co., Ltd. (Inter-Pacific); 351.213(d)(1), as the petitioner and initiated an administrative review for (37) KD Trdg (KD); (38) Kiang Huat Sea CIDA have timely withdrawn their 145 companies and requested that each Hull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., requests for an administrative review, provide data on the quantity and value Ltd. (Kiang Huat); (39) Kingfisher and because no other interested party of its exports of subject merchandise to Holdings Limited (1261 Vicheanchodoc requested a review for these companies. the United States during the period of Rd., Tambol Mahachai, Amphur Muang, This notice is published in review (POR). These companies are Samutsakorn 74000 Thailand) 3 accordance with section 751 of the listed in the Department’s notice of (Kingfisher Samutsakorn); (40) Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 initiation. See Notice of Initiation of Kingfisher Holdings Limited (127/27 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Administrative Reviews of the 22nd Floor, Panjathani Tower Building, Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Dated: July 14, 2006. Nonsee (Rachadapisek) Road Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Chongnonsi, Yannawa, Bangkok 10120 Stephen J. Claeys, Ecuador, India and Thailand, 71 FR Thailand) (Kingfisher Bangkok); (41) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 17819 (Apr. 7, 2006) (Notice of Klang Co., Ltd. (200 Moo 1 Sukhumvit Administration. Initiation). Road Khlong Poon Klaeng, Rayong [FR Doc. E6–11549 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Between May 11, 2006, and July 6, 21170 Thailand) 4 (Klang Rayong); (42) BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 2006, the requests for administrative Klang Co., Ltd. (12th Floor, C.P. Tower, review were withdrawn for 112 313 Silom Road Bangrak, Bangkok companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 10500 Thailand) (Klang Bangkok); (43) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 351.213(d)(1). These companies are: (1) Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. ACU Transport (ACU); (2) Ampai International Trade Administration (Kongphop); (44) Leo Transports (Leo); Frozen Food, Co., Ltd. (Ampai); (3) (45) Lucky Union Foods (Lucky Union); [A–549–822] Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd. (Andaman); (46) Magnate and Syndicate Co., Ltd. (4) Applied DB Ind (Applied DB); (5) (Magnate and Syndicate); (47) Mahachai Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp Asian Seafoods Cold Storage Public Food Processing Co., Ltd. (Mahachai); From Thailand; Partial Rescission of Company Limited (Asian Seafoods); (6) (48) Marine Gold Products Co., Ltd. Antidumping Duty; Administrative Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) (Marine Gold); (49) May Ao Co., Ltd. Review Co., Ltd. (Asian Seafoods (Suratthani)); (May Ao); (50) May Ao Foods Co., Ltd. AGENCY: Import Administration, (7) Assoc. Commercial Systems; (8) AS (May Ao Foods); (51) Merkur Co., Ltd. International Trade Administration, Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd. (AS (Merkur); (52) MFK Interfood (MFK); Department of Commerce. Intermarine); (9) Bright Sea Co., Ltd. (53) Ming Chao Industrial (Thailand) (Bright Sea); (10) CP Mdse; (11) C.Y. Co., Ltd. (Ming Chao); (54) N&N Foods DATES: Effective Date: July 20, 2006. Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (C.Y. Frozen Co., Ltd. (N&N); (55) Namprik Maesri FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Food); (12) Capital Food Trade Limited (Namprik); (56) Nongmon SMJ Products Itkin or Alice Gibbons, AD/CVD (Capital); (13) Chaivaree Marine (Nongmon); (57) Ongkorn Cold Storage Operations, Office 2, Import Products Co., Ltd. (Chaivaree Marine); Ltd. (Ongkorn); (58) Penta Impex Administration, International Trade (14) Chaiwarut Co., Ltd. (Chaiwarut); (Penta); (59) Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd. Administration, U.S. Department of (15) Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution (Chanthaburi); (16) Chanthaburi Seafood 2 We note that we initiated two separate reviews Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Co., Ltd. (Chanthaburi Seafoods); (17) on Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd. because the petitioner telephone: (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482– Charoen Pokphand Foods Public requested a review of this company and listed two 0498, respectively. separate addresses. On June 29, 2006, the petitioner Company Limited (Charoen Pokphand); withdrew its review requests for this company at SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (18) Chonburi LC; (19) Chue Eie Mong both addresses. 3 We note that we initiated two separate reviews Background Eak (Chue Eie); (20) Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Daedong); (21) Daiei Taigen on Kingfisher Holdings Ltd. because the petitioner On February 1, 2006, the Department requested a review of this company and listed two (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Daiei); (22) Daiho separate addresses. On June 21, 2006, the petitioner of Commerce (the Department) (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Daiho); (23) withdrew its review requests for this company at published in the Federal Register a Dynamic Intertransport (Dynamic); (24) both addresses. notice of opportunity to request an Euro-Asian International Seafoods Co., 4 We note that we initiated two separate reviews administrative review of the on Klang Co., Ltd. because the petitioner requested Ltd. (Euro-Asian); (25) Fait; (26) Findus a review of this company and listed two separate antidumping duty order on certain addresses. On May 11, 2006, the petitioner frozen warmwater shrimp from 1 The petitioner in this proceeding is the Ad Hoc withdrew its review requests for this company at Thailand for the period August 4, 2004, Shrimp Trade Action Committee. both addresses.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41201

(Phatthana); (60) Premier Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd. (Trang); (105) set forth in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Products Co., Ltd. (Premier); (61) Transamut Food Co., Ltd. (Transamut); Therefore, because no other interested Preserved Foods; (62) Rayong (106) United Cold Storage Co., Ltd. party requested a review for these Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd. (Rayong); (United Cold Storage); (107) Wales & Co. companies, in accordance with 19 CFR (63) S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Universe Ltd. (Wales & Co.); (108) Wann 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this (S. Chaivaree); (64) S. Khonkaen Food Fisheries Co., Ltd. (Wann); (109) Xian- review with respect to these companies. Ind Public (S. Khonkaen Public); (65) S. Ning Seafood Co., Ltd. (Xian-Ning); This notice is published in Khonkaen Food Ind (S. Khonkaen); (66) (110) Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Y2K); accordance with section 751 of the S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. (S.C.C.); (111) Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 (67) SCT Co., Ltd. (SCT); (68) Samui (Yeenin); and (112) Yong Siam CFR 351.213(d)(4). Foods (Samui); (69) Sea Bonanza Food Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yong). Section Dated: July 14, 2006. Co., Ltd. (332 Soi Pongvetchchanusorn 351.213(d)(1) of the Department’s Stephen J. Claeys, 2, Sukhumvit 64 Road, Bangchak, regulations requires that the Secretary Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Prakanong, Bangkok 10260 rescind an administrative review if a Administration. Thailand) 5(Sea Bonanza Bangkok); (70) party requesting a review withdraws the [FR Doc. E6–11561 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. (48–49 request within 90 days of the date of Sapmahachok, Tambom Nadee, Amphur publication of the notice of initiation. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Moung, Samutsakorn, Thailand) (Sea Therefore, because all requests for Bonanza Samutsakorn); (71) Seafoods administrative reviews were timely DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Seafoods withdrawn for the companies listed Enterprise); (72) Seafresh Fisheries; (73) above, in accordance with 19 CFR International Trade Administration Seafresh Industry Public Company 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this Limited (Seafresh Industry); (74) Search review with regard to these companies. [A–570–905] & Serve; (75) Shianlin Bangkok Co., Partial Rescission of Review Initiation of Antidumping Duty Ltd.(159 Surawong Road Suriyawong Investigation: Certain Polyester Staple Bangrak, Bangkok 10500 Thailand) As noted above, the petitioner and certain respondents withdrew their Fiber from the People’s Republic of (Shianlin Bangkok); (76) Shianlin China Bangkok Co., Ltd. (148 Moo 5, Tambol requests for an administrative review of Tasai Muang, Samut Sakorn Thailand) ACU, Ampai, Andaman, Applied DB, AGENCY: Import Administration, (Shianlin Samut Sakorn); (77) Siam Asian Seafoods, Asian Seafoods International Trade Administration, Food Supply Co., Ltd. (Siam Food); (78) (Suratthani), Assoc. Commercial Department of Commerce. Siam Marine Products (Siam Marine); Systems, AS Intermarine, Bright Sea, CP EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006. Mdse, C.Y. Frozen Food, Capital, (79) Siam Union Frozen Foods (Siam FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Chaivaree Marine, Chaiwarut, Union); (80) Sky Fresh; (81) Songkla Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office Chanthaburi, Chanthaburi Seafoods, Canning (Songkla); (82) STC Foodpak 9, Import Administration, International Charoen Pokphand, Chonburi LC, Chue Co., Limited (STC); (83) Suntechthai Trade Administration, U.S. Department Eie, Daedong, Daiei, Daiho, Dynamic, Intertrdg (Suntechthai); (84) Surapon of Commerce, 14th Street and Euro-Asian, Fait, Findus, Frozen Marine Seafoods Public Co., Ltd. (Surapon); (85) Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, Products, Good Fortune, Haitai Songkla, Surat Seafood Co., Ltd. (Surat); (86) DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3208. Suree Interfoods (Suree); (87) Teppitak Haitai Bangkok, Ham, Heng, Heritrade, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Seafood (Teppitak); (88) Tey Seng Cold High Way, Instant Produce, KD, Inter- Storage Company Limited (Tey Seng); Pacific, Kiang Huat, Kingfisher Initiation of Investigation Samutsakorn, Kingfisher Bangkok, (89) Thai Excel Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai The Petition Excel); (90) Thai-ger Marine Co., Ltd. Klang Rayong, Klang Bangkok, (Thai-ger); (91) Thai International Kongphop, Leo, Lucky Union, Magnate On June 23, 2006, the Department of Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Thai International); and Syndicate, Mahachai, Marine Gold, Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a (92) Thai Mahachai Seafood Products May Ao, May Ao Foods, Merkur, MFK, petition on imports of certain polyester Co., Ltd. (Thai Mahachai); (93) Thai Ming Chao, N&N, Namprik, Nongmon, staple fiber (PSF) from the People’s Prawn Culture Center Company Limited Ongkorn, Penta, Phatthana, Premier, Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in (Thai Prawn); (94) Thai Royal Frozen Preserved Foods, Rayong, S. Chaivaree, proper form by Dak Americas LLC., Nan Food (Thai Royal); (95) Thai Spring Fish S. Khonkaen Public, S. Khonkaen, Ya Plastics Corporation America, and Co., Ltd. (Thai Spring); (96) Thai Union S.C.C., SCT, Samui, Sea Bonanza Wellman, Inc. (‘‘Petitioners’’). The Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (Thai Union Bangkok, Sea Bonanza Samutsakorn, period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is Frozen); (97) Thai Union Seafood Co., Seafoods Enterprise, Seafresh Fisheries, October 1, 2005, through March 31, Ltd. (Thai Union Seafood); (98) Thai Seafresh Industry, Search & Serve, 2006. Union Mfg. (Thai Union Mfg.); (99) Thai Shianlin Bangkok, Shianlin Samut In accordance with section 732(b) of Yoo (Thai Yoo); (100) Thailand Fishery Sakorn, Siam Food, Siam Marine, Siam the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd. (Thailand Union, Sky Fresh, Songkla, STC, Act’’), Petitioners alleged that imports of Fishery); (101) Thanaya Intl (Thanaya); Suntechthai, Surapon, Surat, Suree, certain polyester staple fiber from the (102) The Siam Union Frozen Food Co., Teppitak, Tey Seng, Thai Excel, Thai- PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold Ltd. (The Siam Union); (103) The Union ger, Thai International, Thai Mahachai, in the United States at less than fair Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (The Union Thai Prawn, Thai Royal, Thai Spring, value within the meaning of section 731 Frozen Products); (104) Trang Seafood Thai Union Frozen, Thai Union of the Act, and that such imports are Seafood, Thai Union Mfg., Thai Yoo, materially injuring and threaten to 5 We note that we initiated two separate reviews Thailand Fishery, Thanaya, The Siam injure an industry in the United States. on Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. because the Union, The Union Frozen Products, The Department issued supplemental petitioner requested a review of this company and Trang, Transamut, United Cold Storage, questions to Petitioners on June 28, listed two separate addresses. On June 29, 2006, the petitioner withdrew its review requests for this Wales & Co., Wann, Xian-Ning, Y2K, 2006, and Petitioners filed their company at both addresses. Yeenin, and Yong within the time limits response on July 3, 2006.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41202 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Scope of Investigation and consult with interested parties prior (1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. The merchandise subject to this to the issuance of the preliminary 1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). Section 771(10) of the Act defines the proceeding is synthetic staple fibers, not determination. domestic like product as ‘‘a product carded, combed or otherwise processed Determination of Industry Support for which is like, or in the absence of like, for spinning, of polyesters measuring the Petition most similar in characteristics and uses 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires with, the article subject to an in diameter. This merchandise is cut to that a petition be filed by an interested investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) party described in subparagraph (C), (D), reference point from which the to five inches (127 mm). The subject (E), (F) or (G), or on behalf of the domestic like product analysis begins is merchandise may be coated, usually domestic industry. In order to determine ‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’ with a silicon or other finish, or not whether a petition has been filed by or (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to coated. PSF is generally used as stuffing on behalf of the industry, the be investigated, which normally will be in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, Department, pursuant to section the scope as defined in the petition). comforters, cushions, pillows, and 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, determines With regard to the domestic like furniture. whether a minimum percentage of the product, the Petitioners do not offer a The following products are excluded relevant industry supports the petition. definition of domestic like product from the scope: (1) PSF of less than 3.3 A petition meets this requirement if the distinct from the scope of the decitex (less than 3 denier) currently domestic producers or workers who investigation. Based on our analysis of classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff support the petition account for: (i) at the information submitted on the Schedule of the United States least 25 percent of the total production record, we have determined that certain (‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheading 5503.20.0025 of the domestic like product; and (ii) polyester staple fiber constitutes a single and known to the industry as PSF for more than 50 percent of the production domestic like product and we have spinning and generally used in woven of the domestic like product produced analyzed industry support in terms of and knit applications to produce textile by that portion of the industry that domestic like product. For a and apparel products; (2) PSF of 10 to expressing support for, or opposition to, discussion of the domestic like product 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to the petition. Moreover, section analysis in this case, see the 8 inches and that are generally used in 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if Antidumping Investigation Initiation the manufacture of carpeting; and (3) the petition does not establish support Checklist: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber low–melt PSF defined as a bi– of domestic producers or workers from the People’s Republic of China component fiber with an outer, non– accounting for more than 50 percent of (‘‘PRC’’), Industry Support at polyester sheath that melts at a the total production of the domestic like Attachment I (Initiation Checklist), on significantly lower temperature than its product, the Department shall: (i) poll file in the Central Records Unit, Room inner polyester core (classified at the industry or rely on other B–099 of the main Department of HTSUS 5503.20.0015). information in order to determine if Commerce building. Certain PSF is classifiable under the there is support for the petition, as Our review of the data provided in the HTSUS subheadings 5503.20.0045 and required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) petition, supplemental submissions, and 5503.20.0065. Although the HTSUS determine industry support using a other information readily available to subheadings are provided for statistically valid sampling method. the Department indicates that convenience and customs purposes, the Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines Petitioners have established industry written description of the merchandise the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a support representing at least 25 percent under the orders is dispositive. whole of a domestic like product. Thus, of the total production of the domestic to determine whether a petition has the like product, and more than 50 percent Comments on Scope of Investigation requisite industry support, the statute of the production of the domestic like During our review of the petition, we directs the Department to look to product produced by that portion of the discussed the scope with Petitioners to producers and workers who produce the industry expressing support for or ensure that it accurately reflects the domestic like product. The International opposition to the petition, requiring no product for which the domestic industry Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is further action by the Department is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed responsible for determining whether pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(D) of the in the preamble to the Department’s ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been Act. Therefore, the domestic producers regulations, we are setting aside a injured, must also determine what (or workers) who support the petition period for interested parties to raise constitutes a domestic like product in account for at least 25 percent of the issues regarding product coverage. See order to define the industry. While both total production of the domestic like Antidumping Duties; Countervailing the Department and the ITC must apply product, and the requirements of section Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 the same statutory definition regarding 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. (May 19, 1997). The Department the domestic like product (section Furthermore, the domestic producers encourages all interested parties to 771(10) of the Act), they do so for who support the petition account for submit such comments within 20 different purposes and pursuant to a more than 50 percent of the production calendar days of publication of this separate and distinct authority. In of the domestic like product produced initiation notice. Comments should be addition, the Department’s by that portion of the industry addressed to Import Administration’s determination is subject to limitations of expressing support for, or opposition to, Central Records Unit in Room 1870, time and information. Although this the petition. Thus, the requirements of U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th may result in different definitions of the section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, like product, such differences do not are met. Accordingly, the Department Washington, DC 20230 - Attention: Alex render the decision of either agency determines that the petition was filed on Villanueva, Room 4003. The period of contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. behalf of the domestic industry within scope consultations is intended to United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the provide the Department with ample 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. Act. See Initiation Checklist at opportunity to consider all comments United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 Attachment I (Industry Support).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41203

The Department finds that Petitioners for purposes of the initiation of this Petitioners used information from the filed the petition on behalf of the investigation. Accordingly, the normal wholesale price indices (‘‘WPI’’) in domestic industry because they are an value (‘‘NV’’) of the product is India as published by the Reserve Bank interested party as defined in sections appropriately based on factors of of India (RBI) for input prices during the 771(9)(E) and (F) of the Act and they production valued in a surrogate market period preceding the POI. In addition, have demonstrated sufficient industry economy country in accordance with Petitioners made currency conversions, support with respect to the antidumping section 773(c) of the Act. In the course where necessary, based on the average investigation that they are requesting of this investigation, all parties will rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the the Department initiate. See Initiation have the opportunity to provide relevant POI, as reported on the Department’s Checklist at Attachment I (Industry information related to the issues of the website. Support). PRC’s NME status and the granting of For the normal value calculations, separate rates to individual exporters. Petitioners derived the figures for Export Price Petitioners selected India as the factory overhead, selling, general and Petitioners relied on two U.S. prices surrogate country. Petitioners argued administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and for certain polyester staple fiber that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the profit from the financial ratios of an manufactured in the PRC and offered for Act, India is an appropriate surrogate Indian producer of certain PSF, Reliance sale in the United States. The prices because it is a market–economy country Industries Limited. quoted were for a specific grade and that is at a comparable level of Fair Value Comparisons quality of PSF falling within the scope economic development to the PRC and of this petition, for delivery to the U.S. is a significant producer and exporter of Based on the data provided by customer within the POI. Petitioners polyester staple fiber. Based on the Petitioners, there is reason to believe deducted from the prices the costs information provided by Petitioners, we that imports of certain polyester staple associated with exporting and believe that its use of India as a fiber from the PRC are being, or are delivering the product, including U.S. surrogate country is appropriate for likely to be, sold in the United States at inland freight, ocean freight and purposes of initiating this investigation. less than fair value. Based upon insurance charges, U.S. duty, port and After the initiation of the investigation, comparisons of export price to the NV, wharfage fees, foreign inland freight we will solicit comments regarding calculated in accordance with section costs, and foreign brokerage and surrogate country selection. Also, 773(c) of the Act, the estimated handling. Petitioners also calculated a pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), calculated dumping margins for certain margin based on the weighted average interested parties will be provided an polyester staple fiber from the PRC unit value data for the POI of imports opportunity to submit publicly available range from 87.43 percent to 108.98 from the PRC under HTSUS numbers information to value factors of percent. 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065. production within 40 days after the date Allegations and Evidence of Material Petitioners deducted charges and of publication of the preliminary Injury and Causation expenses associated with exporting and determination. Petitioners provided delivering the product to the customer three dumping margin calculations Petitioners allege that the U.S. in the United States from the CIF price, using the Department’s NME industry producing the domestic like which included ocean freight and methodology as required by 19 CFR product is being materially injured, or is insurance charges, foreign inland freight 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR 351.408. threatened with material injury, by costs, and foreign brokerage and Petitioners calculated normal values reason of the individual and cumulated handling. based on consumption rates for imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that Normal Value producing polyester staple fiber experienced by U.S. producers. In the industry’s injured condition is Petitioners stated that the PRC is a accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the illustrated by the decline in customer non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) and no Act, Petitioners valued factors of base, market share, domestic shipments, determination to the contrary has yet production, where possible, on prices and financial performance. We been made by the Department. In reasonably available, public surrogate have assessed the allegations and previous investigations, the Department country data. To value certain factors of supporting evidence regarding material has determined that the PRC is a NME. production, Petitioners used official injury and causation, and we have See Notice of Final Determination of Indian government import statistics, determined that these allegations are Sales at Less Than Fair Value: excluding those values from countries properly supported by adequate Magnesium Metal from the People’s previously determined by the evidence and meet the statutory Republic of China, 70 FR 9037 Department to be NME countries and requirements for initiation. See (February 24, 2005), Notice of Final excluding imports into India from Initiation Checklist at Attachment II Determination of Sales at Less Than Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and (Injury). Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Thailand, because the Department has Separate Rates and Quantity and Value Products from the People’s Republic of previously excluded prices from these Questionnaire China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005), countries because they maintain and Notice of Final Determination of broadly–available, non–industry The Department recently modified the Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain specific export subsidies. See process by which exporters and Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp Automotive Replacement Glass producers may obtain separate–rate from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Windshields From the People’s Republic status in NME investigations. See Policy FR 70997 (December 8, 2004). In of China: Final Results of Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates Practice accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of Administrative Review, 69 FR 61790 and Application of Combination Rates the Act, the presumption of NME status (October 21, 2004), and accompanying in Antidumping Investigations remains in effect until revoked by the Issues and Decision Memorandum at involving Non–Market Economy Department. The presumption of NME Comment 5. Countries (Separate Rates and status for the PRC has not been revoked For inputs valued in Indian rupees Combination Rates Bulletin), (April 5, by the Department and remains in effect and not contemporaneous with the POI, 2005), available on the Department’s

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41204 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The The Department requires that the the period of investigation. process requires the submission of a respondents submit a response to both Separate Rates and Combination Rates separate–rate status application. Based the quantity and value questionnaire Bulletin, at page 6. on our experience in processing the and the separate–rates application by Initiation of Antidumping Investigation separate rates applications in the the respective deadlines in order to antidumping duty investigations of receive consideration for separate–rate Based upon our examination of the Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s status. This procedure will be applied to petition on certain polyester staple fiber Republic of China and Diamond this and all future investigations. See from the PRC, we find that this petition Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s meets the requirements of section 732 of People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China, 70 FR at 21999, the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an Republic of Korea, we have modified the Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof antidumping duty investigation to application for this investigation to from the People’s Republic of China and determine whether imports of certain make it more administrable and easier the Republic of Korea, 70 FR at 35629, polyester staple fiber from the PRC are for applicants to complete. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty being, or are likely to be, sold in the Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Activated Carbon United States at less than fair value. Investigations: Certain Lined Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 71 Unless postponed, we will make our Products from India, Indonesia, and the FR 16757, 16760 (April 4, 2006). preliminary determinations no later People’s Republic of China, 70 FR Appendix I of this notice contains the than 140 days after the date of these 58374, 58379 (October 6, 2005), quantity and value questionnaire that initiations. Initiation of Antidumping Duty must be submitted by all NME exporters Distribution of Copies of the Petition Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas no later than August 18, 2006. In From the People’s Republic of China, 70 addition, the Department will post the In accordance with section FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005) and quantity and value questionnaire along 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the Initiation of Antidumping Duty with the filing instructions on the IA public version of the petition has been Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and Website: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia– provided to the government of the PRC. Parts Thereof from the People’s highlights-and–news.html. The Department will send the quantity and International Trade Commission Republic of China and the Republic of Notification Korea, 70 FR 35625, 35629 (June 21, value questionnaire to those exporters 2005). The specific requirements for identified in Exhibit General–4 of the We have notified the ITC of our submitting the separate–rates petition and the NME government. initiation, as required by section 732(d) application in this investigation are Use of Combination Rates in an NME of the Act. outlined in detail in the application Investigation Preliminary Determination by the ITC itself, which will be available on the The Department will calculate Department’s Website at http:// The ITC will preliminarily determine, combination rates for certain ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– within 25 days after the date on which respondents that are eligible for a news.html on the date of publication of it receives notice of this initiation, separate rate in this investigation. The this initiation notice in the Federal whether there is a reasonable indication Separate Rates and Combination Rates that imports of certain polyester staple Register. The separate rates application Bulletin, states: is due no later than September 19, 2006. { } fiber from the PRC are causing material w hile continuing the practice of injury, or threatening to cause material assigning separate rates only to NME Respondent Selection and injury, to a U.S. industry. See section exporters, all separate rates that the Quantity and Value Questionnaire 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. A negative ITC Department will now assign in its determination will result in the For NME investigations, it is the NME investigations will be specific investigation being terminated; Department’s practice to request to those producers that supplied the otherwise, this investigation will quantity and value information from all exporter during the period of proceed according to statutory and known exporters identified in the investigation. Note, however, that regulatory time limits. petition. In addition, the Department one rate is calculated for the typically requests the assistance of the exporter and all of the producers This notice is issued and published NME government in transmitting the which supplied subject pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. Department’s quantity and value merchandise to it during the period Dated: July 13, 2006. questionnaire to all companies who of investigation. This practice David M. Spooner, manufacture and export subject applies both to mandatory Assistant Secretary for Import merchandise to the United States, as respondents receiving an Administration. well as to manufacturers who produce individually calculated separate the subject merchandise for companies rate as well as the pool of non– APPENDIX I who were engaged in exporting subject investigated firms receiving the Where it is not practicable to examine merchandise to the United States during weighted–average of the all known producers/exporters of the period of investigation. The quantity individually calculated rates. This subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) and value data received from NME practice is referred to as the of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) exporters is used as the basis to select application of ‘‘combination rates’’ permits us to investigate (1) a sample of the mandatory respondents. Although because such rates apply to specific exporters, producers, or types of many NME exporters respond to the combinations of exporters and one products that is statistically valid based quantity and value information request, or more producers. The cash– on the information available at the time at times some exporters may not have deposit rate assigned to an exporter of selection, or (2) exporters and received the quantity and value will apply only to merchandise producers accounting for the largest questionnaire or may not have received both exported by the firm in volume and value of the subject it in time to respond by the specified question and produced by a firm merchandise that can reasonably be deadline. that supplied the exporter during examined.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41205

In the chart below, please provide the scope of this investigation (see scope United States during the period October total quantity and total value of all your section of this notice), produced in the 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. sales of merchandise covered by the PRC, and exported/shipped to the

Market Total Quantity Terms of Sale Total Value

United States. . 1. Export Price Sales. 2.. a. Exporter name. b. Address. c. Contact. d. Phone No.. e. Fax No.. 3. Constructed Export Price Sales. 4. Further Manufactured. Total Sales.

Total Quantity: constructed export price applies DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Please report quantity on a metric ton even if the sale occurs prior to International Trade Administration basis. If any conversions were used, importation. please provide the conversion (A–557–809) formula and source. • Please include any sales exported by Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings Terms of Sales: your company directly to the From Malaysia: Notice of Rescission of • Please report all sales on the same United States. Antidumping Duty Administrative terms (e.g., free on board). • Please include any sales exported by Review your company to a third–country Total Value: AGENCY: Import Administration, market economy reseller where you • International Trade Administration, All sales values should be reported in had knowledge that the Department of Commerce. U.S. dollars. Please indicate any merchandise was destined to be EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006. exchange rates used and their resold to the United States. respective dates and sources. • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you are a producer of subject Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning, AD/ Export Price Sales: merchandise, please include any CVD Operations, Office 4, Import • Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as sales manufactured by your Administration, International Trade an export price sale when the first company that were subsequently Administration, U.S. Department of sale to an unaffiliated person occurs exported by an affiliated exporter to Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution before importation into the United the United States. Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; States. • Please do not include any sales of telephone: (202) 482–5831 or (202) 482– • Please include any sales exported by merchandise manufactured in Hong 5253, respectively. your company directly to the Kong in your figures. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: United States. • Please include any sales exported by Further Manufactured: Background your company to a third–country On February 1, 2006, the Department • Further manufacture or assembly costs market economy reseller where you of Commerce (the Department) include amounts incurred for direct had knowledge that the published in the Federal Register a materials, labor and overhead, plus merchandise was destined to be notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request resold to the United States. amounts for general and Administrative Review’’ of the • If you are a producer of subject administrative expense, interest antidumping duty order on stainless merchandise, please include any expense, and additional packing steel butt–weld pipe fittings from sales manufactured by your expense incurred in the country of Malaysia for the period February 1, company that were subsequently further manufacture, as well as all 2005, through January 31, 2006. See exported by an affiliated exporter to costs involved in moving the Antidumping or Countervailing Duty the United States. product from the U.S. port of entry Order, Finding, or Suspended • Please do not include any sales of to the further manufacturer. Investigation; Opportunity To Request merchandise manufactured in Hong [FR Doc. E6–11547 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 Kong in your figures. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S (February 1, 2006). On February 28, Constructed Export Price Sales: 2006, Sapura–Schulz Hydroforming Generally, a U.S. sales is classified as a Sdn. Bhd. (Sapura–Schulz), requested constructed export price sale when an administrative review of its sales for the first sale to an unaffiliated the above–mentioned period. On 1 person occurs after importation. February 28, 2006, the petitioners However, if the first sale to the 1 The petitioners in this segment of the unaffiliated person is made by a proceeding are: Flowline Division of Markovitz person in the United States Enterprises, Inc.; Gerlin, Inc.; Shaw Alloy Piping affiliated with the foreign exporter, Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:14 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41206 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

requested an administrative review of Notification to Importers DATES: Comments on the draft recovery the sales for the above–mentioned This notice serves as a final reminder plan must be received by close of period made by Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd. to importers of their responsibility business on September 1, 2006. (Kanzen) and Sapura–Schulz. On April under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kaja 5, 2006, the Department published a certificate regarding the reimbursement Brix, Assistant Regional Administrator, notice of initiation of an administrative of antidumping duties prior to Protected Resources Division, Alaska review of the antidumping duty order liquidation of the relevant entries Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Walsh, P.O. on stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings during this review period. Failure to Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802. from Malaysia with respect to Sapura– comply with this requirement could Comments may also be submitted by (1) Schulz and Kanzen. See Initiation of result in the Secretary’s presumption E-mail to [email protected]. Include in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty that reimbursement of antidumping the subject line the following document Administrative Reviews and Deferral of duties occurred and subsequent identifier: Sea Lion Recovery Plan. E- Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 25145 assessment of double antidumping mail comments, with or without (April 5, 2006). duties. attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes; (2) hand delivery to the Federal Rescission of Review This notice serves as a reminder to Building: 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK; On June 19, 2006, Sapura–Schulz and parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their or (3) Facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7012. the petitioners simultaneously Interested persons may obtain the plan withdrew their requests for an responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information for review from the above address or on- administrative review of the sales made line from the NMFS Alaska Region disclosed under APO in accordance by Sapura–Schulz during the above– website: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/. with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely referenced period. Consequently, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department partially rescinded the written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or Shane Capron at 907-271-6620, e-mail review with respect to Sapura–Schulz. [email protected]; or Kaja Brix at See Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 907-586-7235, e-mail Fittings From Malaysia: Notice of Partial [email protected]. Rescission of Antidumping Duty with the regulations and terms of an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Administrative Review, 71 FR 34304 APO is a sanctionable violation. (July 12, 2006). This notice is published in Background accordance with section 751 of the On July 5, 2006, the petitioners On May 24, 2006, NMFS published a withdrew their request for an Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). notice of availability (NOA) of the plan administrative review of sales made by for the western and eastern DPSs of Kanzen. Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Dated: July 14, 2006. Steller sea lions (71 FR 29919). The plan Department’s regulations requires that Stephen J. Claeys, contains (1) A comprehensive review of the Secretary rescind an administrative Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Steller sea lion status and ecology, (2) a review if a party requesting a review Administration. review of previous conservation actions, withdraws the request within 90 days of [FR Doc. E6–11551 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] (3) a threats assessment, (4) biological the date of publication of the notice of BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S and recovery criteria for downlisting initiation. In this case, the petitioners and delisting, (5) actions necessary for have withdrawn their request for a the recovery of the species, and (6) review of Kanzen within the 90-day DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE estimates of time and cost to recovery. period. We have received no other With the publication of the NOA, NMFS submissions regarding the withdrawals National Oceanic and Atmospheric announced a 60-day public comment of the requests for review. Therefore, we Administration period ending on July 24, 2006. are rescinding this review of the NMFS has received a request by the antidumping duty order on stainless [I.D. 051106A] North Pacific Fishery Management steel butt–weld pipe fittings from Council (Council) to extend the public Malaysia. Endangered and Threatened Species: comment period so that its Science and Extension of Public Comment Period Assessment Statistical Committee (SSC) can fully on Draft Steller Sea Lion Recovery review and provide comments on the The Department will instruct U.S. Plan plan. Due to the size and scope of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to plan, the SSC will not be able to provide assess antidumping duties on all AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and its comments to the Council until late appropriate entries. For those August. The Council will then be able companies for which this review is Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. to finalize the comments and provide rescinded, antidumping duties shall be them to NMFS by September 1. ACTION: assessed at rates equal to the cash Notice of Availability; extension Comments from the SSC and Council deposit of estimated antidumping duties of public comment period. will be valuable to the recovery required at the time of entry, or SUMMARY: In May 2006, the National planning process especially with regard withdrawal from warehouse, for to the threats assessment and the consumption, in accordance with 19 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced the availability for public development of recovery criteria. In this CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). notice NMFS is extending the public The Department will issue review of the draft revised recovery plan comment period until September 1, appropriate assessment instructions (plan) for the western and eastern 2006, in order to allow adequate time directly to CBP within 15 days of distinct population segments (DPS) of for the SSC and others to thoroughly publication of this notice. Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). NMFS is extending the public comment review and thoughtfully comment on the plan. products, Inc.; and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc. period on the recovery plan until (collectively, the petitioners). September 1, 2006. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:03 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41207

Dated: July 14, 2006. South Atlantic EEZ is managed under deepwater snapper grouper species in Marta Nammack, the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Amendment 14. Acting Division Chief, Office of Protected FMP, under the authority of the Type 1 - Permanent closure/no-take Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Type 2 - Permanent closure/some take [FR Doc. E6–11554 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Conservation and Management Act allowed Type 3 - Limited duration closure/no- BILLING CODE 3510–22–S (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Council began considering use of take MPAs in 1990. The Council has since Type 4 - Limited duration closure/ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE held three rounds of scoping meetings some take allowed The Council is also considering and one round of informational public implementing measures to provide for National Oceanic and Atmospheric hearings intended to seek public input on-site enforcement capabilities, Administration on criteria, siting, and impacts as they including the utilization of vessel relate to MPAs for deepwater snapper [I.D. 071406F] monitoring system equipment on grouper species. The Council decided to RIN 0648-AU28 specific categories of fishing vessels. consider the implementation of The Council intends to request that Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of deepwater MPAs in Amendment 14 to NMFS implement regulations to Mexico, and South Atlantic; South the Snapper Grouper FMP. The Notice prohibit the use of shark bottom Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery Off of Intent (NOI) for the DEIS associated longline gear within the MPAs proposed the Southern Atlantic States; with FMP Amendment 14 was in this amendment. Amendment 14 published in the Federal Register on The full suite of alternatives currently January 31, 2002 (67 FR 4696). This NOI being considered for inclusion in the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries supplement is intended to update the DEIS for FMP Amendment 14 can be Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and public on progress of Amendment 14 obtained from the Council (see Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the DEIS. The Council has refined ADDRESSES for contact information). Commerce. the purpose and need for MPAs and has A Federal Register notice will ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a outlined a range of alternatives for announce the availability of the DEIS draft environmental impact statement; inclusion in the DEIS. associated with the amendment, as well supplement; request for comments. The primary purpose of implementing as a 45-day public comment period, these MPAs is to employ a collaborative pursuant to regulations issued by the SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery approach to identify MPA sites with the Council on Environmental Quality for Management Council (Council) is potential to protect a portion of the implementing the National evaluating in a draft environmental population and habitat of long-lived, Environmental Policy Act and to impact statement (DEIS) the deepwater snapper grouper species NOAA’s Administrative Order 216–6. environmental impacts of establishing (speckled hind, snowy grouper, warsaw The Council will consider public Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for grouper, yellowedge grouper, misty comments received on the DEIS in deepwater snapper grouper species in grouper, golden tilefish, and blueline developing the FEIS, and before voting the South Atlantic exclusive economic tilefish) from directed fishing pressure to submit the final amendment to NMFS zone (EEZ). This notice is intended to to achieve a more natural sex ratio, age, for Secretarial review, approval, and supplement a notice published January and size structure within the proposed implementation. NMFS will announce 31, 2002, announcing the preparation of MPAs, while minimizing adverse social in the Federal Register the availability a DEIS for Amendment 14 to the Fishery and economic effects. MPAs are the of the final amendment and FEIS for Management Plan (FMP). most effective fishery management tool public review during the Secretarial DATES: Comments must be received by that allows deepwater snapper grouper review period and will consider all August 21, 2006. species to reach their natural size and public comments prior to final agency ADDRESSES: Copies of the alternatives age, protects spawning locations, and action to approve, disapprove, or should be requested from: Kim Iverson, provides a refuge for early partially approve the final amendment. Public Information Officer, South developmental stages of fish species. Authority: 6 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The Council recognizes that there may Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Dated: July 14, 2006. One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, be positive impacts from the designation of the proposed sites to non-deepwater Alan D. Risenhoover, Charleston, SC 29407–4699, fax: 843– Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 769–4520; e-mail: species that may co-occur, such as vermilion snapper, red porgy, and gag. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [email protected]. [FR Doc. E6–11552 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Comments should be sent to Mark The Council defines MPAs within its BILLING CODE 3510–22–S Sramek, Southeast Regional Office, jurisdiction as a network of specific NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. areas of marine environments reserved and managed for the primary purpose of Petersburg, FL 33701, phone: 727–824– DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 5311; fax: 727–824–5308. Comments aiding in the recovery of overfished may also be submitted by email to stocks and to insure the persistence of National Oceanic and Atmospheric [email protected]. healthy fish stocks, fisheries, and Administration habitats. Such areas may be over natural FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim or artificial bottom and may include [I.D. 071206B] Iverson, Public Information Officer, prohibition of harvest indefinitely (i.e., Taking and Importing of Marine South Atlantic Fishery Management an undefined time period) to Mammals Council; toll free 1–866–SAFMC–10 or accomplish needed conservation goals. 843–571–4366; e-mail: The following types of actions are AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries [email protected]. available to the Council for designating Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MPAs. The Council is focusing on Type Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), snapper grouper fishery operating in the 2 management actions to protect Commerce.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41208 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

ACTION: Notice; affirmative finding An affirmative finding will be Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the renewal. terminated, in consultation with the United States (HTSUS), cannot be Secretary of State, if the Assistant supplied by the domestic industry in SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator Administrator determines that the commercial quantities in a timely for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no manner. CITA hereby designates apparel Administrator) has renewed the longer being met or that a nation is articles containing lace fabrics of such affirmative finding for the Republic of El consistently failing to take enforcement yarns, that are sewn or otherwise Salvador under the Marine Mammal actions on violations, thereby assembled in one or more eligible Protection Act (MMPA). This diminishing the effectiveness of the ATPDEA beneficiary countries from affirmative finding will allow yellowfin IDCP. such fabrics, as eligible for quota free tuna harvested in the Eastern Tropical As a part of the affirmative finding and duty free treatment under the textile Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the and apparel commercial availability the International Dolphin Conservation Assistant Administrator considered provisions of the ATPDEA and eligible Program (IDCP) by purse seine fishing documentary evidence submitted by the under HTSUS subheading 9821.11.10, vessels flying the flag of El Salvador or Republic of El Salvador or obtained provided that all other fabrics in the purse seine fishing vessels operating from the IATTC and the Department of apparel articles are wholly formed in under the jurisdiction of El Salvador to State and has determined that El the United States from yarns wholly be imported into the United States. The Salvador has met the MMPA’s formed in the United States, including affirmative finding was based on review requirements to receive an annual fabrics not formed from yarns, if such of documentary evidence submitted by affirmative finding renewal. yarns are classifiable under HTSUS the Republic of El Salvador and After consultation with the heading 5602 or 5603, and are wholly obtained from the Inter-American Department of State, the Assistant formed in the United States. CITA notes Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and Administrator issued the Republic of El that this designation under the ATPDEA the U.S. Department of State. Salvador’s annual affirmative finding renders apparel articles containing lace fabrics of such yarn, sewn or otherwise DATES: The renewal is effective from renewal, allowing the continued assembled in an eligible ATPDEA April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived beneficiary country, as eligible for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: from yellowfin tuna harvested in the quota-free and duty-free treatment Rodney McInnis, Regional ETP by El Salvadorian-flag purse seine under HTSUS subheading 9821.11.13, Administrator, Southwest Region, vessels or purse seine vessels operating provided the requirements of that NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, under El Salvadorian jurisdiction. El subheading are met. Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802– Salvador’s affirmative finding will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 4213; phone 562–980–4000; fax 562– remain valid through March 31, 2007, Maria K. Dybczak, Office of Textiles and 980–4018. subject to subsequent annual reviews by Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NMFS. (202) 482 3400. MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows Dated: July 14, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the entry into the United States of Samuel D. Rauch, III, Authority: Section 204 (b)(3)(B)(ii) of the yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine ATPDEA, Presidential Proclamation 7616 of Deputy Assistant Administrator for October 31, 2002, Executive Order 13277 of vessels in the ETP under certain Regulatory Programs, National Marine November 19, 2002, and the United States conditions. If requested by the Fisheries Service. Trade Representative’s Notice of Further harvesting nation, the Assistant [FR Doc. E6–11553 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Administrator will determine whether Assignment of Functions of November 25, BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 2002. to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided Background: by the Government of the harvesting COMMITTEE FOR THE The ATPDEA provides for duty-free nation, the IATTC, or the Department of IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE treatment for qualifying textile and State. AGREEMENTS apparel products. Such treatment is The affirmative finding process generally limited to products requires that the harvesting nation is Designation under the Textile and manufactured from yarns and fabrics meeting its obligations under the IDCP Apparel Commercial Availability formed in the United States or a and obligations of membership in the Provisions of the Andean Trade beneficiary country. The ATPDEA also IATTC. Every 5 years, the Government Promotion and Drug Eradication Act provides for quota- and duty-free of the harvesting nation must request an (ATPDEA) treatment for apparel articles that are affirmative finding and submit the both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or required documentary evidence directly July 17, 2006. otherwise assembled in one or more to the Assistant Administrator. On an AGENCY: The Committee for the beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn annual basis, NMFS will review the Implementation of Textile Agreements that is not formed in the United States, affirmative finding and determine (CITA) if it has been determined that such whether the harvesting nation continues ACTION: Designation fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the to meet the requirements. A nation may domestic industry in commercial provide information related to EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2006 quantities in a timely manner. In compliance with IDCP and IATTC SUMMARY: The Committee for the Executive Order No. 13191 (66 FR 7271) measures directly to NMFS on an Implementation of Textile Agreements and pursuant to Executive Order No. annual basis or may authorize the (CITA) has determined that certain 13277 (67 FR 70305) and the United IATTC to release the information to polyester and nylon yarns, of the States Trade Representative’s Notice of NMFS to annually renew an affirmative specifications detailed below, classified Redelegation of Authority and Further finding determination without an in subheadings 5402.31.6000, Assignment of Functions (67 FR 71606), application from the harvesting nation. 5402.62.0000, and 5605.00.1000 of the the President delegated to CITA the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41209

authority to determine whether yarns or On March 31, 2006, CITA and the Federal Register, that the country has fabrics cannot be supplied by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative satisfied the requirements of section domestic industry in commercial (USTR) sent memoranda seeking the 203(c) and (d) of the ATPA (19 U.S.C. quantities in a timely manner under the advice of the Industry Trade Advisory 3202(c) and (d)), resulting in the ATPDEA. On March 6, 2001, CITA Committees (ITAC) for Textiles and enumeration of such country in U.S. published procedures that it will follow Clothing and for Distribution Services. note 1 to subchapter XXI of Chapter 98 in considering requests (66 FR 13502). No advice was received from either of the HTSUS. On March 9, 2006, the Chairman of ITAC. On March 31, 2006, CITA and the CITA received a petition from Encajes, USTR offered to hold consultations with James C. Leonard III, S.A. Colombia, alleging that certain the Committee on Ways and Means of Chairman, Committee for the Implementation polyester and nylon yarns, as described the House of Representatives and the of Textile Agreements. below, cannot be supplied by the Committee on Finance of the Senate [FR Doc. E6–11555 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] domestic industry in commercial (collectively, the Congressional BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S quantities in a timely manner. It Committees). USTR requested the requested quota- and duty-free advice of the U.S. International Trade treatment under the ATPDEA for Commission (ITC) on the probable apparel articles that contain lace fabrics economic effects on the domestic DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE of such yarns that are sewn or otherwise industry of granting the request. On assembled in one or more ATPDEA April 20, 2006, the ITC provided advice Department of the Army beneficiary countries. on the petition. Based on the information and advice Intent To Grant an Exclusive License Specifications: received and its understanding of the of a U.S. Government-Owned Patent industry, CITA determined that the Application yarns set forth in the petition cannot be 1. Mamilon Metallic Yarn, supplied by the domestic industry in AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. G-100 1/69 commercial quantities in a timely HTSUS subheading: 5605.00.1000 ACTION: Notice. Fiber Content: 100% Metallic Covered manner. On May 8, 2006, CITA and in Polyester USTR submitted a report to the Cut: Flat Congressional Committees that set forth SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. Color: Silver and Gold the action proposed, the reasons for 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(I)(i), Yarn Size: Silver- 115 denier; Gold - 126 denier such action, and the advice obtained. A announcement is made of the intent to Yarn Type: Flat, non-textured period of 60 calendar days since this grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, Yarn width: 25 microns report was submitted has expired. revocable license to U.S. patent 2. Cationic Polyester BR * CITA hereby designates as eligible to application number 11/238,155 filed 305f96, 120 Ts (Rigid enter free of quotas and duties under September 28, 2005 entitled ‘‘MVA Poly) HTSUS subheading 9821.11.10, apparel HTSUS subheading: 5402.62.0000 Expressing Modified HIV envelope, gag, Fiber Content: 100% Cationic Poly- articles containing lace fabrics of such and pol Genes,’’ and foreign rights to yarns, of the specifications detailed ester Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Cut: Trilobal above, that are sewn or otherwise Advancement of Military Medicine with Color: Bright assembled in one or more eligible Yarn Type: Flat, non-textured ATPDEA beneficiary countries. Apparel its principal place of business at 1401 Yarn Size: 305 decitex, 96 fila- Rockville Pike, Suite 600, Rockville, MD ments with 120 article containing lace fabrics of such twists in ‘‘S’’ by yarns shall be eligible to enter free of 20852. This invention is jointly owned meter quotas and duties under this by the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for 3. Cationic Polyester Bright subheading, provided all other yarns the Advancement of Military Medicine, Flat 2/78F48 dtex at 120 used in the apparel articles are U.S. the National Institutes of Health, and Ts the U.S. Army. HTSUS subheading: 5402.62.0000 formed and all other fabrics used in the apparel articles are U.S. formed from Fiber Content: 100% Cationic Poly- ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army ester yarns wholly formed in the United Medical Research and Materiel Cut: Trilobal States, including fabrics not formed Color: Bright Command, ATTN: Command Judge from yarns, if such yarns are classifiable Yarn Type: Flat, non-textured Advocate, MCMR–JA, 504 Scott Street, Yarn Size: 78 decitex, 48 fila- under HTSUS heading 5602 or 5603, ments, plied, with and are wholly formed in the United Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702– 120 twists in ‘‘S’’ by States, subject to the special rules for 5012. meter findings and trimmings, certain FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 4. Tactel Bright interlinings and de minimis fibers and HTSUS subheading: 5402.31.6000 patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, yarns under section 204(b)(3)(B)(vi) of Fiber Content: 100% Polyamide 6.6 Patent Attorney, (301) 619–7808. For High Tenacity Nylon the ATPDEA, and that such articles are Cut: Trilobal imported directly into the customs licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Color: Bright territory of the United States from an Research & Technology Assessment, Yarn Type: Textured (301) 619–6664, both at telefax (301) Yarn Size: 312 decitex, 102 fila- eligible ATPDEA beneficiary country. ments, plied, with An ‘‘eligible ATPDEA beneficiary 619–5034. 450 twists in ‘‘S’’ by country’’ means a country which the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: meter Anyone President has designated as an ATPDEA wishing to object to the grant of this On March 15, 2006, CITA requested beneficiary country under section license can file written objections along public comments on the petition. See 203(a)(1) of the Andean Trade with supporting evidence, if any, within Request for Public Comments on Preference Act (ATPA) (19 U.S.C. 15 days from the date of this Commercial Availability Petition Under 3202(a)(1)), and which has been the publication. Written objections are to be ATPDEA, 71 FR 13360 (Mar. 15, 2006). subject of a finding, published in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41210 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

filed with the Command Judge Advocate obligate all funds received under section ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (see ADDRESSES). 107 of the Hurricane Education AGENCY Recovery Act by July 31, 2006. Brenda S. Bowen, [EPA–HQ–OECA–2005–0020; FRL–8200–7] Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. On June 15, 2006, the President [FR Doc. 06–6363 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] signed H.R. 4939, the Emergency Agency Information Collection BILLING CODE 3710–08–M Supplemental Appropriations Act for Activities; Submission to OMB for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Review and Approval; Comment Hurricane Recovery, 2006, Public Law Request; NESHAP for Benzene Waste DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 109–234. This law made an additional Operations (Renewal), EPA ICR $235,000,000 available for the Number 1541.08, OMB Control Number Notice of Extension of Obligation Emergency Impact Aid program and 2060–0183 Deadline for the Emergency Impact Aid provided us with the authority to extend for Displaced Students Program Under the obligation period for the use of the AGENCY: Environmental Protection Section 107 of the Hurricane Education new and initial section 107 funds until Agency. Recovery Act, Division B, Title IV of September 30, 2006. The Secretary is ACTION: Notice. Public Law 109–148 granting this extension to all SEA SUMMARY: In compliance with the AGENCY: Office of Elementary and grantees and LEA or BIA-funded school Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Secondary Education, Department of subgrantees that find it necessary to use 3501 et seq.), this document announces Education. it, provided that all section 107 funds that an Information Collection Request are used only for expenses incurred SUMMARY: The Secretary extends, to (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office September 30, 2006, the obligation during the 2005–2006 school year. We of Management and Budget (OMB) for deadline for all State educational agency strongly encourage all entities to make review and approval. This is a request (SEA) grantees and local educational their best effort to complete all to renew an existing approved agency (LEA) subgrantees under the obligations in advance of the September collection. The ICR, which is abstracted Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced 30 date to avoid the lapse of these below, describes the nature of the Students (Emergency Impact Aid) funds. This action does not change any collection and the estimated burden and program for fiscal year (FY) 2006. We of the other requirements included in cost. the initial January 12, 2006, notice take this action because additional DATES: Additional comments may be funding for this program for necessary published in the Federal Register or in submitted on or before August 21, 2006. the program guidance. expenses related to the consequences of ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of the 2005 Electronic Access to This Document: referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ– hurricane season was recently made You may view this document, as well as OECA–2005–0020, to (1) EPA online available under Title II, Chapter 6 of the all other documents of this Department using www.regulations.gov (our Emergency Supplemental published in the Federal Register, in preferred method); or by e-mail to Appropriations Act for Defense, the text or Adobe Portable Document [email protected]; or by mail to: EPA Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Format (PDF) on the Internet at the Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Recovery, 2006, Public Law 109–234. following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ Protection Agency, Enforcement and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. fedregister. Compliance Docket and Information Catherine Schagh, Director, Impact Aid To use PDF you must have Adobe Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 Program, U.S. Department of Education, Acrobat Reader, which is available free Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room at this site. If you have questions about Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: 3E105, Washington, DC 20202–6244. using PDF, call the U.S. Government Office of Information and Regulatory Telephone: (202) 260–3858 or by e-mail: Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– Affairs, Office of Management and [email protected]. Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer If you use a telecommunications 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512–1530. for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., device for the deaf (TDD), call the Washington, DC 20503. Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800– Note: The official version of this document FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 877–8339. Individuals with disabilities is the document published in the Federal Marı´a Malave´, Compliance Assessment can obtain this document in an Register. Free Internet access to the official and Media Programs Division (Mail alternative format (e.g., Braille, large edition of the Federal Register and the Code Code 2223A), Office of Compliance, print, audiotape, or computer diskette) of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 on request to the program contact Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., person listed in this section. index.html. Washington, DC 20460; telephone SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number: (202) 564–7027; fax number: Background Number 84.938C Emergency Impact Aid for (202) 564–0050; e-mail address: On January 12, 2006, we published a Displaced Students) [email protected]. notice in the Federal Register (71 FR Program Authority: Division B, Title IV of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 2027) announcing the initial availability Pub. L. 109–148 and Title II, Chapter 6 of submitted the following ICR to OMB for of funds and application deadline for Pub. L. 109–234. review and approval according to the assistance under the Emergency Impact procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. Dated: July 17, 2006. Aid program. The notice included a On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA number of application requirements Henry L. Johnson, sought comments on this ICR pursuant regarding deadlines and student Assistant Secretary for Elementary and to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no enrollment data and also indicated that Secondary Education. comments. Any additional comments on all SEAs, LEAs, and Bureau of Indian [FR Doc. E6–11560 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] this ICR should be submitted to EPA Affairs (BIA)-funded schools must BILLING CODE 4000–01–P and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41211

EPA has established a public docket proposed on September 14, 1989, and changed; train personnel to be able to for this ICR under docket ID number promulgated on March 7, 1990. These respond to a collection of information; EPA–HQ–OECA–2005–0020, which is regulations apply to facilities that search data sources; complete and available for public viewing online at generate waste containing benzene, such review the collection of information; www.regulations.gov, or via in-person as chemical manufacturing plants, coke and transmit, or otherwise disclose the viewing at the Enforcement and by-product recovery plants, petroleum information. Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket refineries, and those owners and Respondents/Affected Entities: Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room operators of hazardous waste treatment, Owners or operators of benzene waste B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF) operations. Washington, DC. The EPA Docket which receive wastes from the above Estimated Number of Respondents: Center Public Reading Room is open facilities, commencing construction, 234. from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday modification or reconstruction after the Frequency of Response: On occasion, through Friday, excluding legal date of the proposal. This information is semiannually, quarterly and initially. holidays. The telephone number for the being collected to assure compliance Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. 16,626. the telephone number for the The monitoring, recordkeeping, and Estimated Total Annual Capital and Enforcement and Compliance Docket is reporting requirements outlined in these Operations and Maintenance Costs: (202) 566–1927. rules are similar to those required for $0.00. Use EPA’s electronic docket and other NESHAP regulations. Consistent Changes in the Estimates: There are comment system at with the NESHAP General Provisions no changes in the burden calculation for www.regulations.gov, to submit or view (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the renewal of this ICR since we have public comments, access the index respondents are required to submit assumed that there has been no change listing of the contents of the docket, and initial notifications, conduct in the industry burden since the last ICR to access those documents in the docket performance tests, and submit quarterly was approved. that are available electronically. Once in or semiannual reports, as applicable. Dated: July 12, 2006. the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then They also are required to maintain Sara Hisel-McCoy, key in the docket ID number identified records of applicability determinations; above. Please note that EPA’s policy is performance test results; exceedances; Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division. that public comments, whether periods of startup, shutdown, or submitted electronically, or in paper, malfunction; monitoring records, and all [FR Doc. E6–11524 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] will be made available for public other information needed to determine BILLING CODE 6560–50–P viewing at www.regulations.gov, as EPA compliance with the applicable receives them and without change, standards. An owner, or operator subject ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION unless the comment contains to the provisions of this part shall copyrighted material, CBI, or other maintain a file of these measurements, AGENCY information whose public disclosure is and retain the file for at least five years [EPA–HQ–OECA–2005–0051; FRL–8200–9] restricted by statute. For further following the date of such information about the electronic docket, measurements, maintenance reports, Agency Information Collection go to www.regulations.gov. and records. Records and reports must Activities; Submission to OMB for Title: NESHAP for Benzene Waste be retained for a total of two years. The Review and Approval; Comment Operations (Renewal). files may be maintained on microfilm, Request; NESHAP for Asphalt ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number on a computer, or floppy disks, on Processing and Asphalt Roofing 1541.08, OMB Control Number 2060– magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche. Manufacturing (Renewal), EPA ICR 0183. All reports are sent to the delegated Number 2029.03, OMB Control Number ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to state or local authority. In the event that 2060–0520 expire on August 31, 2006. Under OMB there is no such delegated authority, the AGENCY: Environmental Protection regulations, the Agency may continue to reports are sent directly to the Agency. conduct or sponsor the collection of appropriate United States information while this submission is Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ACTION: Notice. pending at OMB. An Agency may not regional office. SUMMARY: In compliance with the conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Burden Statement: The annual public Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. required to respond to, a collection of reporting and recordkeeping burden for 3501 et seq.), this document announces information unless it displays a this collection of information is that an Information Collection Request currently valid OMB control number. estimated to average 71 hours per (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office The OMB control numbers for EPA’s response. Burden means the total time, regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after effort, or financial resources expended of Management and Budget (OMB) for appearing in the Federal Register when by persons to generate, maintain, retain, review and approval. This is a request approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, or disclose, or provide information to, or to renew an existing approved and displayed either by publication in for a Federal agency. This includes the collection. The ICR, which is abstracted the Federal Register, or by other time needed to review instructions; below, describes the nature of the appropriate means, such as on the develop, acquire, install, and utilize collection and the estimated burden and related collection instrument or form, if technology and systems for the purposes cost. applicable. The display of OMB control of collecting, validating, and verifying DATES: Additional comments may be numbers in certain EPA regulations is information, processing and submitted on or before August 21, 2006. consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. maintaining information, and disclosing ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Abstract: The National Emission and providing information; adjust the referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ– Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants existing ways to comply with any OECA–2005–0051, to (1) EPA online (NESHAP) for the regulations published previously applicable instructions and using http://www.regulations.gov (our at 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF were requirements which have subsequently preferred method), or by e-mail to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41212 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

[email protected], or by mail to: EPA restricted by statute. For further retained two years on-site of the Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental information about the electronic docket, required total five years. All reports are Protection Agency, Enforcement and go to http://www.regulations.gov. sent to the delegated state or local Compliance Docket and Information Title: NESHAP for Asphalt Processing authority. In the event that there is no Center, mail code 2201T, 1200 and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing such delegated authority, the reports are Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (Renewal). sent directly to the EPA regional office. Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number Burden Statement: The annual public Office of Information and Regulatory 2029.03, OMB Control Number 2060– reporting and recordkeeping burden for Affairs, Office of Management and 0520. this collection of information is Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to estimated to average 223 hours per for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., expire on August 31, 2006. Under OMB response. Burden means the total time, Washington, DC 20503. regulations, the Agency may continue to effort, or financial resources expended FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: conduct or sponsor the collection of by persons to generate, maintain, retain, Marı´a Malave´, Compliance Assessment information while this submission is or disclose or provide information to or and Media Programs Division (Mail pending at OMB. An Agency may not for a Federal agency. This includes the Code 2223A), Office of Compliance, conduct or sponsor, and a person is not time needed to review instructions; Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 required to respond to, a collection of develop, acquire, install, and utilize Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., information unless it displays a technology and systems for the purposes Washington, DC 20460; telephone currently valid OMB control number. of collecting, validating, and verifying number: (202) 564–7027; fax number: The OMB control numbers for EPA’s information, processing and regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after (202) 564–0050; e-mail address: maintaining information, and disclosing appearing in the Federal Register when [email protected]. and providing information; adjust the approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, existing ways to comply with any SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has and displayed either by publication in previously applicable instructions and submitted the following ICR to OMB for the Federal Register or by other requirements which have subsequently review and approval according to the appropriate means, such as on the changed; train personnel to be able to procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. related collection instrument or form, if respond to a collection of information; On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA applicable. The display of OMB control search data sources; complete and sought comments on this ICR pursuant numbers in certain EPA regulations is review the collection of information; to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. and transmit or otherwise disclose the comments. Any additional comments on Abstract: The National Emission information. this ICR should be submitted to EPA Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Respondents/Affected Entities: and OMB within 30 days of this notice. (NESHAP) for NESHAP for Asphalt Owners or operators of facilities that EPA has established a public docket Processing and Asphalt Roofing manufacture asphalt roofing products or for this ICR under docket ID number Manufacturing were proposed on oxidized asphalt. EPA–HQ–OECA–2005–0051, which is January 10, 1989, and promulgated on Estimated Number of Respondents: available for online viewing at http:// November 20, 1990 (55 FR 48414). 24. www.regulations.gov, or in person These standards apply to new and Frequency of Response: On occasion, viewing at the Enforcement and existing facilities that manufacture semiannually, and initially. Compliance Docket and Information asphalt roofing products or oxidized Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/ asphalt that are major sources of 12,017. DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or are Estimated Total Annual Cost: Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, collocated at major sources. This $25,407, includes O&M costs only. DC. The EPA Docket Center Public information is being collected to assure Changes in the Estimates: The Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to compliance with 40 CFR part 63, increase from 1,962 hours to 12,017 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, subpart LLLLL. hours in the annual labor burden to excluding legal holidays. The telephone Owners and operators of affected industry from the most recently number for the Reading Room is (202) sources are subject to the monitoring, approved ICR is due to adjustments. The 566–1744, and the telephone number for recordkeeping and reporting increase in burden from the most the Enforcement and Compliance requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart recently approved ICR is due to an Docket is (202) 566–1927. A, the General Provisions, unless increase from 19 to 22 in the number of Use EPA’s electronic docket and specified otherwise in the regulation. existing sources and the assumption comment system at http:// This rule requires sources to submit that all existing sources are in full www.regulations.gov, to submit or view initial notifications, conduct compliance with the rule’s initial and public comments, access the index performance tests if the source is using on-going requirements since the listing of the contents of the docket, and an add-on control device, and submit compliance date has passed, May 1, to access those documents in the docket periodic compliance reports. In 2006. All respondents are currently that are available electronically. Once in addition, sources are required to recording operating parameters and the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then maintain records of the occurrence and submitting semiannual compliance key in the docket ID number identified duration of any startup, shutdown, or reports to comply with rule requirement above. Please note that EPA’s policy is malfunction in the operation if using an compared to only new respondents in that public comments, whether add-on control device; any period the active ICR. submitted electronically or in paper, during which the monitoring system is The decrease from $277,684 to will be made available for public inoperative; parametric monitoring data; $25,407 in the total annualized capital viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, system maintenance and calibration; and operations and maintenance (O&M) as EPA receives them and without and work practices to demonstrate costs is due to no startup capital costs change, unless the comment contains initial and ongoing compliance with the being attributed to this rule since copyrighted material, CBI, or other regulation. Records of such monitors are an integral part of the information whose public disclosure is measurements and actions are to be control equipment necessary to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41213

determine if it is operating properly, Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, and a decrease in the contractor’s costs Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; after appearing in the Federal Register associated with performance tests based telephone number: 703–308–7033; fax when approved, are listed in 40 CFR on the assumption that all existing number: 703–308–8617; e-mail address: part 9, are displayed either by respondents are in full compliance with [email protected]. publication in the Federal Register or the rule requirements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has by other appropriate means, such as on Dated: July 11, 2006. submitted the following ICR to OMB for the related collection instrument or Sara Hisel McCoy, review and approval according to the form, if applicable. The display of OMB Acting Director, Collection Strategies procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. control numbers in certain EPA Division. On February 16, 2006 (71 FR 8301), EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR [FR Doc. E6–11525 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] sought comments on this ICR pursuant part 9. Abstract: Section 3005 of Subtitle C of BILLING CODE 6560–50–P to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on RCRA requires treatment, storage or this ICR should be submitted to EPA disposal facilities (TSDFs) to obtain a ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and OMB within 30 days of this notice. permit. To obtain the permit, the TSDFs AGENCY EPA has established a public docket must submit an application describing for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– the facility’s operation. There are two [EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006–0069 FRL–8200–5] HQ–RCRA–2006–0069, which is parts to the RCRA permit application— Agency Information Collection available for online viewing at Part A and Part B. Part A defines the Activities; Submission to OMB for www.regulations.gov, or in person processes to be used for treatment, Review and Approval; Comment viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA storage, and disposal of hazardous Request; Part B Permit Application, Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, wastes; the design capacity of such Permit Modifications, and Special Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., processes; and the specific hazardous Permits (Renewal), EPA ICR Number NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC wastes to be handled at the facility. Part 1573.11, OMB Control Number 2050– Public Reading Room is open from 8 B requires detailed site specific 0009 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through information such as geologic, Friday, excluding legal holidays. The hydrologic, and engineering data. In the AGENCY: Environmental Protection telephone number for the Reading Room event that permit modifications are Agency. is 202–566–1744, and the telephone proposed by the applicant or EPA, ACTION: Notice. number for RCRA Docket is (202) 566– modifications must conform to the 0270. requirements under sections 3004 and SUMMARY: In compliance with the Use EPA’s electronic docket and 3005. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. comment system at Burden Statement: The annual public 3501 et seq.), this document announces reporting and recordkeeping burden for that an Information Collection Request www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index this collection of information is (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office estimated to average 262 hours per of Management and Budget (OMB) for listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket response. Burden means the total time, review and approval. This is a request effort, or financial resources expended to renew an existing approved that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then by persons to generate, maintain, retain, collection. This ICR is scheduled to or disclose or provide information to or expire on July 31, 2006. Under OMB key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA’s policy is for a Federal agency. This includes the regulations, the Agency may continue to time needed to review instructions; conduct or sponsor the collection of that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, develop, acquire, install, and utilize information while this submission is technology and systems for the purposes pending at OMB. This ICR describes the will be made available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA of collecting, validating, and verifying nature of the information collection and information, processing and its estimated burden and cost. receives them and without change, unless the comment contains maintaining information, and disclosing DATES: Additional comments may be copyrighted material, CBI, or other and providing information; adjust the submitted on or before August 21, 2006. information whose public disclosure is existing ways to comply with any ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, restricted by statute. For further previously applicable instructions and referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ– information about the electronic docket, requirements; train personnel to be able RCRA–2006–0069, to (1) EPA online go to www.regulations.gov. to respond to a collection of using www.regulations.gov (our Title: Part B Permit Application, information; search data sources; preferred method), or by mail to: Permit Modifications, and Special complete and review the collection of Resource Conservation and Recovery Permits (Renewal). information; and transmit or otherwise Act (RCRA) Docket (5305T), U.S. ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1573.11, disclose the information. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 OMB Control No. 2050–0009. Respondents/Affected Entities: Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., ICR status: This ICR is currently Business or other for-profit. Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB by scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006. Estimated Number of Respondents: mail to: Office of Information and Under OMB regulations, the Agency 97. Regulatory Affairs, Office of may continue to conduct or sponsor the Frequency of Response: On occasion. Management and Budget (OMB), collection of information while this Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 submission is pending at OMB. An 25,430. 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC Agency may not conduct or sponsor, Estimated Total Annual Cost: 20503. and a person is not required to respond $7,518,000, which includes $45,000 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to, a collection of information, unless it annualized capital/startup costs, Toshia King, Office of Solid Waste, displays a currently valid OMB control $5,658,000 annual O&M costs and mailcode 5303W, Environmental number. The OMB control numbers for $1,815,000 annual labor costs.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41214 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Changes in the Estimates: There is an Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 displays a currently valid OMB control increase of 13,221 hours in the total Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., number. The OMB control numbers for estimated burden currently identified in Washington, DC 20460; telephone EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR number: (202) 343–9241; fax number: after appearing in the Federal Register Burdens. This increase is due to the (202) 565–2134; e-mail address when approved, are listed in 40 CFR larger number of affected facilities, [email protected]. part 9, and included on the related based on the current information and collection instrument or form, if SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has reporting requirements from the submitted the following ICR to OMB for applicable. Abstract: In an effort to aid RCRAInfo database. review and approval according to the implementation of U.S. commitments in Dated: July 12, 2006. procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. the United Nations Framework Sara Hisel McCoy, On June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31177), EPA Convention on Climate Change, the Acting Director, Collection Strategies sought comments on this ICR pursuant President announced a Climate Change Division. to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no Strategy on February 14, 2002, wherein [FR Doc. E6–11526 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] comments. Any additional comments on he set a national U.S. GHG intensity BILLING CODE 6560–50–P this ICR should be submitted to EPA goal of 18 percent by 2012. Part of that and OMB within 30 days of this notice. strategy challenges companies to set EPA has established a public docket GHG reduction goals by working with ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– AGENCY EPA through the voluntary Climate HQ–OAR–2002–0094, which is Leaders program. EPA has developed [EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0094; FRL–8200–6 ] available for online viewing at this renewal ICR to ensure that the www.regulations.gov, or in person program remains credible by obtaining Agency Information Collection viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket continued authorization to collect Activities; Submission to OMB for and Information Center in the EPA information from Climate Leaders Review and Approval; Comment Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Partners to ensure the Partners are Request; Reporting Requirements Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution meeting their GHG goals over time. Under EPA’s Climate Leaders Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Companies that join Climate Leaders Partnership (Renewal); EPA ICR No. EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open voluntarily agree to the following: 2100.02, OMB Control No. 2060–0532 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday Completing and submitting a through Friday, excluding legal AGENCY: Environmental Protection Partnership Agreement; negotiating a holidays. The telephone number for the corporate GHG reduction goal; Agency. Reading Room is 202–566–1744, and the ACTION: Notice. submitting a GHG inventory telephone number for the Air and management plan; participating in an SUMMARY: In compliance with the Radiation Docket is 202–566–1742. onsite review of the inventory Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 Use EPA’s electronic docket and management plan, and reporting to EPA, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document comment system at on an annual basis, the company’s GHG announces that an Information www.regulations.gov, to submit or view emissions inventory, and progress Collection Request (ICR) has been public comments, access the index toward their GHG reduction goal via forwarded to the Office of Management listing of the contents of the docket, and Climate Leaders Annual GHG Inventory and Budget (OMB) for review and to access those documents in the docket Summary and Goal Tracking Form. The approval. This is a request to renew an that are available electronically. Once in information contained in the inventories existing approved collection. The ICR, the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then of the companies that join Climate which is abstracted below, describes the key in the docket ID number identified Leaders may be considered confidential nature of the information collection and above. Please note that EPA’s policy is business information and is maintained its estimated burden and cost. that public comments, whether as such. EPA uses the data obtained submitted electronically or in paper, DATES: Additional comments may be from the companies to assess the will be made available for public submitted on or before August 21, 2006. success of the program in achieving its viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA ADDRESSES: GHG reduction goals. Responses to the Submit your comments, receives them and without change, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– information collection are voluntary. unless the comment contains Burden Statement: The annual public OAR–2002–0094, to (1) EPA online copyrighted material, CBI, or other reporting and recordkeeping burden for using www.regulations.gov (preferred information whose public disclosure is this collection of information is method), by e-mail to a-and-r- restricted by statute. For further estimated to equal 11,955 hours and to [email protected], or by mail to: information about the electronic docket, average 94.13 hours per year per EPA Docket Center, Environmental go to www.regulations.gov. respondent. The average number of Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Title: Reporting Requirements Under annual burden hours on first year Docket and Information Center, MC EPA’s Climate Leaders Partnership partners for each type of one-time 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, (Renewal). response is: 9.67 hours to complete and NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2100.02, submit a Partnership Agreement, 46.75 OMB by mail to: Office of Information OMB Control No. 2060–0532. hours for documenting and submitting and Regulatory Affairs, Office of ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to an Inventory Management Plan, 22.25 Management and Budget (OMB), expire on September 30, 2006. Under hours participating in an on-site Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 OMB regulations, the Agency may verification of the Inventory 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC continue to conduct or sponsor the Management Plan, 41 hours for 20503. collection of information while this negotiating and setting a GHG reduction FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submission is pending at OMB. An goal, 117.5 hours for establishing a base James Sullivan, Climate Protection Agency may not conduct or sponsor, year inventory, and 3.5 hours to submit Partnerships Division, Office of and a person is not required to respond a company profile that is posted on the Atmospheric Programs, 6202J, to, a collection of information, unless it Web. For all other partners who have

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41215

been part of the program for longer than develop these revised reporting 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC one year, the average number of annual requirements, which are better suited 20503. burden hours is 67 hours for verifying for establishing and tracking progress of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and updating the Annual GHG corporate GHG reduction goals. This Nina Bonnelycke, Environmental Inventory Summary and Goal Tracking change is result of a more interactive Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Form one time per year. program approach between EPA and Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; Partners may also submit voluntary Climate Leaders partners and a larger telephone number: 202.564.0764; fax updates of company profiles or contact number of partners in the program since number: 202.564.6384; e-mail address: information, via the Climate Leaders the currently approved ICR. Web site or e-mail. These updates [email protected]. Dated: July 12, 2006. would take 3 hours per response. All of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has Sara Hisel McCoy, these activities are included in the submitted the following ICR to OMB for annual burden estimate. Acting Director, Collection Strategies review and approval according to the Division. There are no capital or start-up costs procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. associated with this information [FR Doc. E6–11527 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] On March 7, 2006 (71 FR 11407–11411), collection. The average annual BILLING CODE 6560–50–P EPA sought comments on this ICR operation and maintenance cost pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA resulting for this collection of received one set of comments on the information is $3 per respondent. The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY draft ICR. EPA’s response to those average annual labor cost is $6,914 per comments is reflected in the ICR respondent. The resulting total annual supporting statement. Any additional [EPA–HQ–OW–2006–0136; FRL–8200–8] cost averaged over the three year period comments on this ICR should be is $878,176. Agency Information Collection submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 Burden means the total time, effort, or Activities; Submission to OMB for days of this notice. financial resources expended by persons Review and Approval; Comment EPA has established a public docket to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose Request; Information Collection for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– or provide information to or for a Request for the NPDES Regulation and HQ–OW–2006–0136, which is available Federal agency. This includes the time Effluent Limitation Guidelines and for online viewing at needed to review instructions; develop, Standards for Concentrated Animal www.regulations.gov, or in person acquire, install, and utilize technology Feeding Operations, EPA ICR No. viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA and systems for the purposes of 1989.04, OMB Control No. 2040–0250 Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, collecting, validating, and verifying Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., information, processing and AGENCY: Environmental Protection NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket maintaining information, and disclosing Agency. Center Public Reading Room is open and providing information; adjust the ACTION: Notice. from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday existing ways to comply with any through Friday, excluding legal previously applicable instructions and SUMMARY: In compliance with the holidays. The telephone number for the requirements which have subsequently Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and changed; train personnel to be able to 3501 et seq.), this document announces the telephone number for the Water respond to a collection of information; that an Information Collection Request Docket is (202) 566–2426. search data sources; complete and (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office Use EPA’s electronic docket and review the collection of information; of Management and Budget (OMB) for comment system at and transmit or otherwise disclose the review and approval. This is a request www.regulations.gov, to submit or view information. to renew an existing approved public comments, access the index Respondents/Affected Entities: collection. This ICR is scheduled to listing of the contents of the docket, and Climate Leaders Partner Corporations. expire on July 31, 2006. Under OMB Estimated Number of Respondents: to access those comments in the docket regulations, the Agency may continue to that are available electronically. Once in 127. conduct or sponsor the collection of Frequency of Response: Annually, on the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then information while this submission is key in the docket ID number identified occasion, one-time. pending at OMB. This ICR describes the Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: above. Please note that EPA’s policy is nature of the information collection and that public comments, whether 11,955. its estimated burden and cost. Estimated Total Annual Cost: submitted electronically or in paper, $878,000, includes $0 annual capital/ DATES: Additional comments may be will be made available for public startup costs, $60 annual O&M costs and submitted on or before August 21, 2006. viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA $878,000 annual labor costs. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, receives them and without change, Changes in the Estimates: There is an referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ– unless the comment contains increase of 6,841 hours in the total OW–2006–0136, to (1) EPA online using copyrighted material, CBI, or other estimated burden compared with that www.regulations.gov (our preferred information whose public disclosure is identified in the ICR currently approved method), by email to ow- restricted by statute. For further by OMB. This increase includes an [email protected], or by mail to: EPA information about the electronic docket, adjustment of 4,637 hours and a Docket Center, Environmental go to www.regulations.gov. program change of 2,204 hours. This Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Title: Information Collection Request increase reflects an evolution of the Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., for the NPDES Regulation and Effluent Climate Leader Partnership which has NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) Limitation Guidelines and Standards for modified the reporting and tracking OMB at: Office of Information and Concentrated Animal Feeding procedures in order to continue to Regulatory Affairs, Office of Operations. assess the program’s effectiveness. EPA Management and Budget (OMB), ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1989.04, has collaborated with partners to Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 OMB Control No. 2040–0250.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41216 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to capital investment and $8,680,000 for 70°39′12″ W; West to Kingston—Route expire on July 31, 2006. Under OMB O&M costs. 3A bridge over the Jones River— regulations, the Agency may continue to Changes in the Estimates: The burden 41°59′48″ N–70°44′30″ W; South to conduct or sponsor the collection of estimate has increased due to growth in Plymouth—Route 3A bridge over the Eel information while this submission is the industry and trends towards River and southernmost waters of pending at OMB. An Agency may not consolidation into larger facilities. As a Warren Cove—41°56′51″ N–70°37′55″ conduct or sponsor, and a person is not result calculations were revised to W; Duxbury municipal boundary— required to respond to, a collection of accommodate this. 42°04′22″ N–70°38′55″ W; East to information, unless it displays a Dated: July 12, 2006. navigational marker N ‘‘8’’ located off ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ currently valid OMB control number. Sara Hisel McCoy, Howland Ledge—42 04 36 N–70 36 48 W; South to navigational marker RW The OMB control numbers for EPA’s Acting Director, Collection Strategies regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after Division. ‘‘GP’’ Bell located east of Gurnet Point— 41°59′57″ N–70°35′03″ W; South to appearing in the Federal Register when [FR Doc. E6–11528 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, navigation Marker R ‘‘12’’ Whistle BILLING CODE 6560–50–P are displayed either by publication in located off Mary Ann Rocks—41°55′07″ the Federal Register or by other N–70°33′22″ W; South to navigation appropriate means, such as on the marker RW ‘‘CC’’ Bell located off the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ related collection instrument or form, if AGENCY Cape Cod Canal—41 48 52 N–70 27 38 applicable. The display of OMB control W; and West to Plymouth municipal numbers in certain EPA regulations is [EPA–R01–OW–2006–0435; FRL–8200–3] boundary—41°48′38″ N–70°32′13″ W. The delineation places the eastern consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. Massachusetts Marine Sanitation Abstract: This ICR calculates the boundary 9,900 feet seaward of Duxbury Device Standard—Notice of Beach at the public parking area; 4,775 burden and costs associated with the Determination NPDES and ELG regulations for feet seaward of Gurnet Point; 6,775 feet Concentrated Animal Feeding AGENCY: Environmental Protection seaward of Manomet Point; and 15,000 Operations (CAFOs). These regulations Agency (EPA). feet seaward of Peaked Cliff. On June 1, 2006, notice was published regulate land application of manure, ACTION: Notice of Determination. litter and wastewater generated at CAFO that the State of Massachusetts had facilities. The rule requires all facilities SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator petitioned the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to defined as a CAFO to apply for a NPDES of the Environmental Protection determine that adequate facilities for the permit. Agency—New England Region, has safe and sanitary removal and treatment Burden Statement: The annual public determined that adequate facilities for of sewage from all vessels are reporting and recordkeeping burden for the safe and sanitary removal and reasonably available for the waters of this collection of information is treatment of sewage from all vessels are Plymouth Bay, Plymouth Harbor, estimated to average less than 18 hours reasonably available for the waters of Plymouth Bay, Plymouth Harbor, Kingston Bay, and Duxbury Bay, per response. Burden means the total Massachusetts and their respective time, effort, or financial resources Kingston Bay, and Duxbury Bay, Massachusetts; their respective coastal coastal waters and coastal tidal rivers. expended by persons to generate, No comments were received on this maintain, retain, or disclose or provide waters and coastal tidal rivers covered under this determination. petition. information to or for a Federal agency. The petition was filed pursuant to ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in This includes the time needed to review section 312 (f) (3) of Public Law 92–500, the docket are listed in the instructions; develop, acquire, install, as amended by Public laws 95–217 and www.regulations.gov index. Although and utilize technology and systems for 100–4, for the purpose of declaring listed in the index, some information is the purposes of collecting, validating, these waters a ‘‘No Discharge Area’’ not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other and verifying information, processing (NDA). and maintaining information, and information whose disclosure is Section 312(f)(3) states: After the disclosing and providing information; restricted by statute. Certain other effective date of the initial standards adjust the existing ways to comply with material, such as copy-righted material, and regulations promulgated under this any previously applicable instructions will be publicly available only in hard section, if any State determines that the and requirements which have copy. Publicly available docket protection and enhancement of the subsequently changed; train personnel materials are available electronically in quality of some or all of the waters to be able to respond to a collection of www.regulations.gov. within such States require greater information; search data sources; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann environmental protection, such State complete and review the collection of Rodney, U. S. Environmental Protection may completely prohibit the discharge information; and transmit or otherwise Agency—New England Region, One from all vessels of any sewage, whether disclose the information. Congress Street, Suite 1100, COP, treated or not, into such waters, except Respondents/Affected Entities: Boston, MA 02114–2023. Telephone: that no such prohibition shall apply Entities potentially affected by this (617) 918–0538. Fax number: (617) 918– until the Administrator determines that action are owners and operators of 1505. e-mail address: adequate facilities for the safe and Concentrated Animal Feeding [email protected]. sanitary removal and treatment of Operations (CAFOs). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This sewage from all vessels are reasonably Estimated Number of Respondents: Notice of Determination is for the waters available for such water to which such 24,080 of Plymouth Bay, Plymouth Harbor, prohibition would apply. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Kingston Bay, and Duxbury Bay, The information submitted to EPA by Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: Massachusetts. The area of designation the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 3,500,000 hours. includes: certifies that there are six pumpout Estimated Total Annual Cost: North to include the northernmost facilities at four locations located within $78,660,000 includes $440,000 for reaches of the Back River—42°04′06″ N– the proposed area. A list of the facilities,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41217

with phone numbers, locations, and site visits by EPA New England staff, the area covered under this hours of operation is appended at the EPA has determined that adequate determination. end of this determination. facilities for the safe and sanitary This determination is made pursuant Based on the examination of the removal and treatment of sewage from to section 312(f)(3) of Public Law 92– petition and its supporting all vessels are reasonably available for 500, as amended by Public Laws 95–217 documentation and information from and 100–4.

LIST OF PUMPOUTS IN THE PROPOSED AREA

Mean low Name Location Contact information Hours of operation water depth Fee (Call ahead to verify) (in feet)

Brewer’s Marine ...... Plymouth Harbor ...... VHF 9, 72, 508–746–4500, April 1–Dec. 15 ...... 9 None. [email protected]. 7 am–5 pm ...... Plymouth Harbormaster Plymouth Harbor @ Town VHF 9, 16, 508–830–4182 May 1–Nov. 1 ...... N/A None. Pumpout Boat. Pier. Pumpout boat ...... Daily 10 am–6 pm ...... Plymouth Shore Side Plymouth Harbor @ Town VHF 9, 508–830–4182 ...... May 1–Nov. 1 ...... 8 None. Pumpout at Town Pier. Pier. Self-Serve 24 hrs ...... Duxbury Harbormaster Snug Harbor ...... VHF 16, 781–934–2866 ..... May 1–Nov. 1 ...... N/A None. Pumpout Boat. Spring 9 am–5 pm ...... Summer 7 am–7 pm ...... Fall 9 am–5 pm ...... Duxbury Shore Side Duxbury Town Pier ...... VHF 16, 781–934–2866 ..... May 1–Nov. 1 ...... 6 None. Pumpout. Spring 9 am–5 pm ...... Summer 7 am–7 pm ...... Fall 9 am–5 pm ...... Kingston Harbormaster ...... Town Landing ...... VHF 9, 781–585–0519 ...... Apr. 1–Nov. 1 ...... 3 None. 8 am–4 pm ......

Dated: July 11, 2006. Louisiana, under section 303(d) of the tmdl.htm, or obtained by calling or Robert W. Varney, Clean Water Act (CWA). These TMDLs writing Ms. Smith at the above address. Regional Administrator, New England Region. were completed in response to a court Please contact Ms. Smith to schedule an [FR Doc. E6–11530 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] order in the lawsuit styled Sierra Club, inspection. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P et al. v. Clifford, et al., No. 96–0527, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (E.D. La.). Diane Smith at (214) 665–2145. DATES: Comments must be submitted in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1996, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION writing to EPA on or before August 21, AGENCY two Louisiana environmental groups, 2006. the Sierra Club and Louisiana [FRL–8200–4] ADDRESSES: Comments on the 85 Environmental Action Network TMDLs should be sent to Diane Smith, (plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Environmental Protection Specialist, Court against the EPA, styled Sierra Availability of Total Maximum Daily Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. Club, et al. v. Clifford, et al., No. 96– Loads (TMDL) Environmental Protection Agency 0527, (E.D. La.). Among other claims, AGENCY: Environmental Protection Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to Agency (EPA). 75202–2733 or e-mail: establish Louisiana TMDLs in a timely ACTION: Notice of availability. [email protected]. For further manner. EPA proposes 63 of these information, contact Diane Smith at TMDLs pursuant to a consent decree SUMMARY: This notice announces the (214) 665–2145 or fax 214.665.7373. The entered in this lawsuit. availability for comment of the administrative record files for the 85 EPA Seeks Comment on 85 TMDLs administrative record files for 85 TMDLs are available for public TMDLs and the calculations for these inspection at this address as well. By this notice EPA is seeking TMDLs prepared by EPA Region 6 for Documents from the administrative comment on the following 85 TMDLs waters listed in the Red River, Sabine record files may be viewed at for waters located within Louisiana River, and Terrebonne Basins of http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/ basins:

Subsegment Waterbody name Pollutant

100306 ...... Kelly Bayou—AR State Line to Black Bayou ...... Fecal Coliform. 100309 ...... Cross Bayou ...... Turbidity, TDS, Chloride, Sulfate, and TSS. 100406 ...... Flat River—Headwaters to Loggy Bayou ...... Fecal Coliform and TDS. 100602 ...... Boggy Bayou ...... Turbidity and Sedimentation/siltation. 100603 ...... Wallace Lake ...... Turbidity and Sedimentation/siltation. 100701 ...... Black Lake Bayou ...... Turbidity, TDS, and Sedimentation/sil- tation. 100704 ...... Kepler Creek ...... TDS. 100707 ...... Castor Creek—Headwaters to Black Lake Bayou ...... Fecal Coliform. 100708 ...... Unnamed Tributary to Castor Creek near Town of Castor ...... Sulfate and TDS.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41218 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Subsegment Waterbody name Pollutant

100709 ...... Grand Bayou—Headwaters to Black Lake Bayou ...... Fecal Coliform. 100710 ...... Unnamed Tributary to Grand Bayou near Town of Hall Summit ...... TDS, Chloride, and Sulfate. 100801 ...... Saline Bayou—from its origin near Arcadia to LA Hwy 156 in Winn Parish (scenic) .. Fecal Coliform. 100804 ...... Unnamed Tributary to Saline Bayou near Town of Arcadia ...... TDS and Sulfate. 100901 ...... Nantaches Creek—Headwaters to Nantaches Lake ...... Fecal Coliform. 101101 ...... Cane River—above Natchitoches to Red River ...... TDS and Chloride. 101103 ...... Bayou Kisatchie—entrance and into Kisatchie National Forest to Old River (scenic) Fecal Coliform and TDS. 101301 ...... Rigolette Bayou—Headwaters to Red River ...... Fecal Coliform. 101303 ...... Latt Creek—Headwaters to Latt Lake ...... TDS. 101401 ...... Buhlow Lake (Pineville) ...... Turbidity. 101503 ...... Old Saline Bayou—from Saline Lake to Red River ...... Turbidity. 101505 ...... Larto Lake ...... Turbidity, TDS, and Sulfate. 101601 ...... Bayou Cocodrie—from Little Cross Bayou to Wild Cow Bayou (scenic) ...... Turbidity. 101602 ...... Cocodrie Lake ...... Turbidity. 110202 ...... Pearl Creek—from its origin to its entrance into Sabine River (scenic) ...... Fecal Coliform. 110401 ...... Bayou Toro—Headwaters to LA Hwy 473 ...... Fecal Coliform. 110402 ...... Bayou Toro—LA Hwy 473 to its entrance into Sabine River ...... Fecal Coliform. 110501 ...... West Anacoco Creek—Headwaters to Vernon Lake ...... Fecal Coliform. 110504 ...... Bayou Anacoco—Vernon Lake to Anacoco Lake ...... Fecal Coliform. 110601 ...... Vinton Waterway ...... Turbidity. 120101 ...... Bayou Portage ...... TDS, Chloride, Fecal Coliform, and TSS. 120102 ...... Bayou Poydras ...... Sediment, Sulfate, TDS, TSS, and Fecal Coliform. 120104 ...... Bayou Grosse Tete ...... Fecal Coliform and TDS. 120105 ...... Chamberlin Canal ...... Fecal Coliform, TSS, and Sediment. 120106 ...... Bayou Plaquemine ...... Turbidity. 120109 ...... Intracoastal Waterway ...... Fecal Coliform. 120110 ...... Bayou Cholpe ...... TDS and Sulfate. 120111 ...... Bayou Maringouin—Headwaters to East Atchafalaya Basin Levee ...... Fecal Coliform and TDS. 120112 ...... Bayou Fordoche ...... Fecal Coliform and TDS. 120201 ...... Lower Grand River and Belle River ...... Fecal Coliform and Sulfate. 120206 ...... Grand Bayou and Little Grand Bayou ...... Fecal Coliform. 120301 ...... Bayou Terrebonne ...... Fecal Coliform. 120502 ...... Bayou Grand Caillou ...... Fecal Coliform. 120503 ...... Bayou Petit Caillou ...... Fecal Coliform. 120504 ...... Bayou Petit Caillou ...... Fecal Coliform. 120506 ...... Bayou du Large ...... Fecal Coliform. 120507 ...... Bayou Chauvin ...... Fecal Coliform. 120508 ...... Houma Navigation Canal ...... Fecal Coliform. 120602 ...... Bayou Terrebonne ...... Fecal Coliform. 120605 ...... Bayou Pointe au Chien ...... Fecal Coliform. 120606 ...... Bayou Blue ...... Fecal Coliform. 120701 ...... Bayou Grand Caillou ...... Fecal Coliform. 120703 ...... Bayou du Large ...... Fecal Coliform. 120707 ...... Lake Boudreaux ...... Fecal Coliform. 120708 ...... Lost Lake, Four League Bay ...... Fecal Coliform.

EPA requests that the public provide Dated: July 13, 2006. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS to EPA any water quality related data Miguel I. Flores, COMMISSION and information that may be relevant to Director, Water Quality Protection Division the calculations for the 85 TMDLs. EPA (6WQ). Sunshine Act Meeting will review all data and information [FR Doc. E6–11529 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] July 13, 2006. submitted during the public comment BILLING CODE 6560–50–P period and revise the TMDLs where Deletion of Agenda Item From July 13, appropriate. EPA will then forward the 2006, Open Meeting TMDLs to the Louisiana Department of The following item has been deleted Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The from the list of Agenda items scheduled LDEQ will incorporate the TMDLs into for consideration at the Thursday, July its current water quality management 13, 2006, Open Meeting and previously plan. listed in the Commission’s Notice of Thursday, July 6, 2006.

4 Media ...... Title: Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broad- cast Service. Summary: The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order, First Order on Re- consideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding digital audio broadcasting (MM Docket No. 99–325).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41219

Federal Communications Commission. that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Marlene H. Dortch, (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has Management and Budget, Washington, Secretary. determined by Order to be closely DC or by fax to (202) 395–6974. Written [FR Doc. 06–6400 Filed 7–18–06; 1:11 pm] related to banking and permissible for comments should be received within 30 BILLING CODE 6712–01–P bank holding companies. Unless days of this notice. otherwise noted, these activities will be Proposed Project conducted throughout the United States. National Ambulatory Medical Care FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Survey (NAMCS) 2007–2008 (OMB No. Change in Bank Control Notices; The notice also will be available for 0920–0234)—Revision—National Center Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank inspection at the offices of the Board of for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Holding Companies Governors. Interested persons may Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). express their views in writing on the Background and Brief Description The notificants listed below have question whether the proposal complies applied under the Change in Bank with the standards of section 4 of the The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) was conducted Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and BHC Act. Additional information on all annually from 1973 to 1981, again in § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 bank holding companies may be 1985, and resumed as an annual survey CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank obtained from the National Information in 1989. The purpose of NAMCS is to holding company. The factors that are Center Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/ meet the needs and demands for considered in acting on the notices are nic/. statistical information about the set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 Unless otherwise noted, comments provision of ambulatory medical care U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). regarding the applications must be services in the United States. The notices are available for received at the Reserve Bank indicated Ambulatory services are rendered in a immediate inspection at the Federal or the offices of the Board of Governors wide variety of settings, including Reserve Bank indicated. The notices not later than August 14, 2006. physicians’ offices and hospital also will be available for inspection at A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland outpatient and emergency departments. the office of the Board of Governors. (Cindy West, Manager) 1455 East Sixth The NAMCS target population consists Interested persons may express their Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566: of all office visits made by ambulatory views in writing to the Reserve Bank 1. National City Corporation, patients to non-Federal office-based indicated for that notice or to the offices Cleveland, Ohio; to acquire Harbor physicians (excluding those in the of the Board of Governors. Comments Florida Bancshares, Inc., Fort Pierce, specialties of anesthesiology, radiology, must be received not later than August Florida, and thereby indirectly acquire and pathology) who are engaged in 4, 2006. Harbor Federal Savings Bank, Fort direct patient care. For the first time in A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Pierce, Florida, and engage in operating 2006, physicians and mid-level (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 a savings association, pursuant to providers (i.e., nurse practitioners, Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia section 225.28(b)(4)(ii), and Appraisal physician assistants, and nurse 30309: Analysis, Inc., Fort Pierce, Florida, and midwives) practicing in community 1. John L. Harvey, Flora, Mississippi; engage in providing real estate appraisal health centers (CHCs) were added to the to retain voting shares of Madison services, pursuant to section NAMCS sample, and these data will Financial Corporation and thereby 225.28(b)(2)(i) of Regulation Y. indirectly retain voting shares of continue to be collected in 2007–2008. Madison County Bank, both of Madison, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve To complement NAMCS data, NCHS Mississippi. System, July 17, 2006. initiated the National Hospital Robert deV. Frierson, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Ambulatory Medical Care Survey System, July 17, 2006. Deputy Secretary of the Board. (NHAMCS, OMB No. 0920–0278) to Robert deV. Frierson, [FR Doc. E6–11518 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] provide data concerning patient visits to hospital outpatient and emergency Deputy Secretary of the Board. BILLING CODE 6210–01–S departments. [FR Doc. E6–11517 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] The NAMCS provides a range of BILLING CODE 6210–01–S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND baseline data on the characteristics of HUMAN SERVICES the users and providers of ambulatory medical care. Data collected include the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Centers for Disease Control and patients’ demographic characteristics, Notice of Proposals to Engage in Prevention reason(s) for visit, physicians’ diagnosis(es), diagnostic services, Permissible Nonbanking Activities or [30Day–06–0234] to Acquire Companies that are medications, and visit disposition. In Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork addition, a Cervical Cancer Screening Activities Reduction Act Review Supplement (CCSS) will continue to be a key focus in 2007–2008. The CCSS The companies listed in this notice The Centers for Disease Control and collects information on cervical cancer have given notice under section 4 of the Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of screening practices performed by Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. information collection requests under selected physician specialties. It will 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 review by the Office of Management and allow the CDC/National Center for CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Chronic Disease Prevention and Health acquire or control voting securities or Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Promotion to evaluate cervical cancer assets of a company, including the Chapter 35). To request a copy of these screening methods and the use of companies listed below, that engages requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance human papillomavirus tests. either directly or through a subsidiary or Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an e- Users of NAMCS data include, but are other company, in a nonbanking activity mail to [email protected]. Send written not limited to, congressional offices,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41220 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Federal agencies, state and local professional associations, clinicians, total estimated annualized burden hours governments, schools of public health, researchers, administrators, and health are 8,645. colleges and universities, private planners. There are no costs to the industry, nonprofit foundations, respondents other than their time. The

ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS

Number of Avg. burden Respondents Number of responses/re- per response respondents spondent (in hrs)

Office-based physicians (eligible): Physician Induction Interview ...... 2,662 1 35/60 Patient Record form ...... 2,263 30 5/60 Pulling and re-filing Patient Record form ...... 399 30 1/60 CCSS ...... 712 1 15/60 Office-based physicians (ineligible): Patient Induction Interview ...... 888 1 5/60 Community Health Center Directors: Community Health Center Induction Interview ...... 104 1 20/60 CHC Providers: Physician Induction Interview ...... 312 1 35/60 Patient Record Form ...... 265 30 5/60 Pulling and re-filing Patient Record form ...... 47 30 1/60 CCSS ...... 312 1 15/60

Dated: July 11, 2006. [email protected], or FDA statement of the general nature of the Joan F. Karr, Advisory Committee Information Line, evidence or arguments they wish to Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the present, the names and addresses of Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, DC area), code proposed participants, and an [FR Doc. E6–11521 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] 3014512544. Please call the Information indication of the approximate time BILLING CODE 4163–18–P Line for up-to-date information on this requested to make their presentation on meeting. The background material will or before August 23, 2006. become available no later than the day Persons attending FDA’s advisory DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND before the meeting and will be posted committee meetings are advised that the HUMAN SERVICES on FDA’s Web site at http:// agency is not responsible for providing www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/ access to electrical outlets. Food and Drug Administration acmenu.htm under the heading FDA welcomes the attendance of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory ‘‘Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory public at its advisory committee Committee; Notice of Meeting Committee (PDAC).’’ (Click on the year meetings and will make every effort to 2006 and scroll down to PDAC accommodate persons with physical AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, meetings.) disabilities or special needs. If you HHS. Agenda: On September 7, 2006, the require special accommodations due to ACTION: Notice. committee will discuss new drug a disability, please contact Cicely Reese application (NDA) 21–999, paliperidone at least 7 days in advance of the This notice announces a forthcoming extended-release (ER) tablets, Janssen, meeting of a public advisory committee meeting. L.P./Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Notice of this meeting is given under of the Food and Drug Administration Research and Development, L.L.C., (FDA). The meeting will be open to the the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 proposed indication for treatment of U.S.C. app. 2). public. schizophrenia. On September 8, 2006, Name of Committee: the committee will discuss NDA 21– Dated: July 13, 2006. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory 992, desvenlafaxine succinate (DVS Randall W. Lutter, Committee. 233), ER tablets, Wyeth Associate Commissioner for Policy and General Function of the Committee: Planning. To provide advice and Pharmaceuticals, proposed indication [FR Doc. E6–11537 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] recommendations to the agency on for treatment of major depressive FDA’s regulatory issues. disorder. BILLING CODE 4160–01–S Date and Time: The meeting will be Procedure: Interested persons may held on September 7 and 8, 2006, from present data, information, or views, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. orally or in writing, on issues pending Location: Hilton Hotel,The Ballrooms, before the committee. Written HUMAN SERVICES submissions may be made to the contact 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD Food and Drug Administration 20877. person on or before August 23, 2006. Contact Person: Cicely Reese, Center Oral presentations from the public will Advisory Committee for Reproductive for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD– be scheduled between approximately 1 Health Drugs; Notice of Meeting 21), Food and Drug Administration, p.m. and 2 p.m. on both days. Time 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, allotted for each presentation may be AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093) Rockville, limited. Those desiring to make formal HHS. MD 20857, 301–827–7001, FAX: 301– oral presentations should notify the ACTION: Notice. 827–6776, e-mail: contact person and submit a brief

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41221

This notice announces a forthcoming agency is not responsible for providing Submit written requests for single meeting of a public advisory committee access to electrical outlets. copies of the draft program standards to of the Food and Drug Administration FDA welcomes the attendance of the the Division of Federal-State Relations (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public at its advisory committee (HFC–150), Office of Regional public. meetings and will make every effort to Operations, Food and Drug Name of Committee: Advisory accommodate persons with physical Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Committee for Reproductive Health disabilities or special needs. If you Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self- Drugs. require special accommodations due to addressed adhesive label to assist the General Function of the Committee: a disability, please contact Teresa office in processing your request, or fax To provide advice and Watkins at least 7 days in advance of the your request to 716–551–3845. See the recommendations to the agency on meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for FDA’s regulatory issues. Notice of this meeting is given under electronic access to the draft program Date and Time: The meeting will be the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 standards. held on August 29, 2006, from 8 a.m. to U.S.C. app. 2). 5:30 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Location: Hilton Hotel, The Dated: July 13, 2006. Beverly Kent, Division of Federal-State Ballrooms, 620 Perry Pkwy., Randall W. Lutter, Relations, Food and Drug Gaithersburg, MD. Associate Commissioner for Policy and Administration, 300 Pearl St., suite 100, Contact Person: Teresa Watkins, Planning. Buffalo, NY 14202, 716–541–0331. [FR Doc. E6–11538 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Center for Drug Evaluation and Research SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (HFD–21), Food and Drug BILLING CODE 4160–01–S Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for I. Background express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. FDA is announcing the availability of 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827– DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND a draft document entitled 7001, FAX: 301–827–6776, e-mail: HUMAN SERVICES ‘‘Manufactured Food Regulatory [email protected] or FDA Program Standards.’’ The standards Advisory Committee Information Line, Food and Drug Administration were developed after the Department of 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the [Docket No. 2006D–0246] Health and Human Services, Office of Washington, DC area), code Inspector General (OIG) audited FDA’s 3014512537. Please call the Information Draft Manufactured Food Regulatory oversight of food firm inspections Line for up-to-date information on this Program Standards; Availability conducted by States through contracts. meeting. When available, background AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, In June 2000, the OIG released its materials for this meeting will be posted HHS. findings. The OIG recommended that 1 business day prior to the meeting on FDA take steps to promote ‘‘equivalence the FDA Website at http://www.fda.gov/ ACTION: Notice. among Federal and State food safety ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm. Click SUMMARY: The Food and Drug standards, inspection programs, and on the year 2006 and scroll down to the Administration (FDA) is announcing the enforcement practices.’’ The report is on Advisory Committee for Reproductive availability of a draft document entitled the Internet at http://www.oig.hhs.gov/ Health Drugs.) ‘‘Manufactured Food Regulatory Agenda: The committee will discuss oei/reports/oei-01-98-00400.pdf. (FDA Program Standards’’ (draft program new drug application (NDA) 21–945, has verified the Web site address, but standards). The draft program standards, proposed trade name Gestiva, 17 alpha- FDA is not responsible for any which establish a uniform foundation hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, subsequent changes to the Web site after for the design and management of State 250 mg/mL, Adeza Biomedical, for the this document publishes in the Federal programs responsible for regulation of proposed indication prevention of Register.) plants that manufacture, process, pack, preterm delivery in women with a In response to the OIG’s findings, or hold foods in the United States, are history of a prior preterm delivery. FDA established a committee to draft a Procedure: Interested persons may being distributed for comment purposes set of quality standards for present data, information, or views, only. This document is neither final nor manufactured food regulatory programs. orally or in writing, on issues pending is it intended for implementation at this The committee was comprised of before the committee. Written time. officials from FDA and from State submissions may be made to the contact DATES: Written comments on the draft agencies responsible for the regulation person on or before August 15, 2006. program standards may be submitted by and inspection of food plants. Oral presentations from the public will September 18, 2006. General comments These draft program standards be scheduled between approximately 1 on the draft program standards are establish a uniform foundation for the p.m. and 2 p.m. Time allotted for each welcome at any time. Submit written design and management of a State presentation may be limited. Those comments on the information collection program that is an operational unit(s) desiring to make formal oral provisions by September 18, 2006. responsible for the regulatory oversight presentations should notify the contact ADDRESSES: Submit written comments of food plants that manufacture, person and submit a brief statement of on the information collection provisions process, pack, or hold foods in the the general nature of the evidence or to the Division of Dockets Management United States. The elements of the draft arguments they wish to present, the (HFA–305), Food and Drug program standards describe best names and addresses of proposed Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. practices of a high-quality regulatory participants, and an indication of the 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit program. Achieving conformance with approximate time requested to make electronic comments to http:// these program standards will require their presentation on or before August www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. comprehensive self-assessment on the 15, 2006. Identify comments with the docket part of a State program and will Persons attending FDA’s advisory number found in brackets in the encourage continuous improvement and committee meetings are advised that the heading of this document. innovation. All self-assessment

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41222 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

worksheets and supporting documents With respect to the following worksheets contained herein; however, will be retained by the State agency. collection of information, FDA invites alternate forms should be equivalent to comments on the following topics: (1) the forms and worksheets in the draft II. Significance of Program Standards Whether the proposed collection of program standards. These draft program These draft program standards information is necessary for the proper standards do not address the represents the agency’s current thinking performance of FDA’s functions, performance appraisal processes that a on how to build a uniform foundation including whether the information will State agency may use to evaluate for managing a State program that is an have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of individual employee performance. operational unit(s) responsible for the FDA’s estimate of the burden of the When finalized, FDA will use the regulatory oversight of food plants that proposed collection of information, program standards as a tool to improve manufacture, process, pack, or hold including the validity of the contracts with State agencies. The foods in the United States. The elements methodology and assumptions used; (3) program standards will assist both FDA of the draft program standards describe ways to enhance the quality, utility, and and the States in fulfilling their best practices of a high-quality clarity of the information to be regulatory obligations. regulatory program. collected; and (4) ways to minimize the The implementation of the program burden of the collection of information III. Electronic Access standards will be negotiated as an on respondents, including through the option for payment under the State use of automated collection techniques, Persons with access to the Internet contract. States that are awarded this when appropriate, and other forms of may obtain the draft program standards option will receive up to $5,000 to information technology. perform the self assessment and to at either http://www.fda.gov/ora/ Title: Manufactured Food Regulatory _ maintain an operational plan for self fed state/default.htm or http:// Program Standards www.fda.gov.ohrms/dockets/ Description: The elements of the draft improvement. FDA recognizes that full default.htm. program standards are intended to use and implementation of the program standards by those States will take IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ensure that the States have the best practices of a high-quality regulatory several years. Such States will, however, Under the Paperwork Reduction Act program to use for self-assessment and be expected to implement improvement of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501– continuous improvement and plans to demonstrate that their programs 3520), Federal agencies must obtain innovation. The ten standards describe are moving toward full implementation. approval from the Office of Management the critical elements of a regulatory Those self assessments and and Budget (OMB) for each collection of program designed to protect the public improvement plans will be audited as a information they conduct or sponsor. from foodborne illness and injury. part of the program oversight of the FDA ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined These elements include the State state contracts. in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 program’s regulatory foundation, staff The goal is to enhance food safety by and includes agency requests or training, inspection, quality assurance, establishing a uniform basis for requirements that members of the public food defense preparedness and measuring and improving the submit reports, keep records, or provide response, foodborne illness and incident performance of manufactured food information to a third party. Section investigation, enforcement, education regulatory programs in the United 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. and outreach, resource management, States. The development and 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies laboratory resources, and program implementation of these program to provide a 60-day notice in the assessment. Each standard has standards will help Federal and State Federal Register concerning each corresponding self-assessment programs better direct their regulatory proposed collection of information worksheets, and certain standards have activities at reducing foodborne illness before submitting the collection of OMB supplemental worksheets and forms that hazards in plants that manufacture, for approval. To comply with this will assist State programs in process, pack, or hold foods. requirement, FDA is publishing notice determining their level of conformance Consequently, the safety and security of of the proposed collection of with the standard. The State program is the food supply in the United States information set forth in this document. not required to use the forms and will improve.

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1

No. of Annual Frequency Total Annual Hours per Respondents per Response Responses Response Total Hours

40 0.5 20 40 800 1 Because State agencies already keep records of the usual and customary activities required by their inspection programs, the burden from compiling these records is not included in the burden chart.

TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED 5-YEAR SELF ASSESSMENT BURDEN

No. of 5-Year Frequency Total 5-Year 1 1 Respondents per Response Responses Hours per Response Total Hours

40 1 40 100/40 4,000/1,600 1 The initial self assessment is estimated at 100 hours per respondent. Subsequent updates of the self assessments will be conducted every 5 years and should be completed in 40 hours or less.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41223

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL ‘‘IMPROVEMENT PLAN’’ BURDEN

No. of Annual Frequency Total Annual Hours per Respondents per Response Responses Response Total Hours

40 1 40 5 200

V. Comments various underserved populations. Included comment. No public comments were in the meeting will be discussions of received. The purpose of this notice is The draft program standards are being community-based training initiatives. The distributed for comment purposes only to allow an additional 30 days for public meeting will allow the Committee to comment. The National Institutes of and are not intended for formulate appropriate recommendations for implementation at this time. Interested the Secretary and Congress regarding Health may not conduct or sponsor, and persons may submit to the Division of interdisciplinary training, and community- the respondent is not required to Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) based training. respond to, an information collection written or electronic comments Agenda: The agenda includes an overview that has been extended, revised, or regarding this document. Submit a of the Committee’s general business implemented on or after October 1, activities. The Committee will hear 1995, unless it displays a currently valid single copy of electronic comments or presentations from experts on two paper copies of any mailed OMB control number. interdisciplinary training and community- Proposed Collection: Title: Hazardous comments, except that individuals may based training, and will discuss best Waste Worker Training—42 CFR Part submit one paper copy. Comments are practices to formulate recommendations for 65. Type of Information Collection to be identified with the docket number the Secretary and the Congress. Request: Revision of OMB No. 0925– found in brackets in the heading of this Agenda items are subject to change as 0348, expiration date August 31, 2006. document. A copy of the draft program priorities indicate. Supplementary Information: This meeting Need and Use of Information Collection: standards and received comments are This request for OMB review and available for public examination in the notice is delayed due to the resolution of fiscal year 2006 budget issues and the status approval of the information collection is Division of Dockets Management of Committee membership. required by regulation 42 CFR part between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday For Further Information Contact: Anyone 65(a)(6). The National Institute of through Friday. requesting information regarding the Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Dated: July 14, 2006. Committee should contact Lou Coccodrilli, has been given major responsibility for Jeffrey Shuren, Federal Official for the ACICBL, and Acting initiating a worker safety and health Director of the Division of State, Community training program under section 126 of Assistant Commissioner for Policy. & Public Health, Bureau of Health [FR Doc. E6–11539 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Professions, Health Resources and Services the Superfund Amendments and BILLING CODE 4160–01–S Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Maryland Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) for 20857; Telephone (301) 443–7774. hazardous waste workers and emergency responders. A network of Dated: July 17, 2006. non-profit organizations that are DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Cheryl R. Dammons, HUMAN SERVICES committed to protecting workers and Director, Division of Policy Review and their communities by delivering high- Health Resources and Service Coordination. quality, peer-reviewed safety and health Administration [FR Doc. 06–6382 Filed 7–17–06; 3:39 pm] curricula to target populations of BILLING CODE 4165–15–P hazardous waste workers and Advisory Committee on emergency responders has been Interdisciplinary, Community-Based developed. In seventeen years (FY Linkages; Notice of Meeting DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 1987–2004), the NIEHS Worker Training HUMAN SERVICES In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of program has successfully supported 20 primary grantees that have trained more the Federal Advisory Committee Act National Institutes of Health than 1.3 million workers across the (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby given country and presented over 69,000 of the following meeting: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Division of classroom and hands-on training Name: Advisory Committee on courses, which have accounted for Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Extramural Research and Training; Submission for OMB Review; nearly 18 million contact hours of actual Linkages (ACICBL). training. Generally, the grant will Dates and Times: (Face-to-face meeting). Comment Request; Hazardous Waste July 24, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. July 25, Worker Training initially be for one year, and subsequent 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. continuation awards are also for one Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Summary: Under the provisions of year at a time. Grantees must submit a Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone: 301– section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork separate application to have the support 468–1100. Reduction Act of 1995, the National continued for each subsequent year. Status: The meeting will be open to the Institute of Environmental Health Grantees are to provide information in public. Sciences (NIEHS), the National accordance with S65.4(a), (b), (c) and Purpose: The Committee will be focusing Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted 65.6(b) on the nature, duration, and on interdisciplinary training and education, to the Office of Management and Budget purpose of the training, selection specifically examining evidence-based (OMB) a request to review and approve criteria for trainees’ qualifications and models/research as regards interdisciplinary training. In addition, the Committee will be the information collection listed below. competency of the project director and looking at the potential impact of This proposed information collection staff, cooperative agreements in the case interdisciplinary training programs on health was previously published in the Federal of joint applications, the adequacy of service delivery networks including how Register on April 5, 2006, page 17119, training plans and resources, including such training programs address the needs of and allowed 60 days for public budget and curriculum, and response to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41224 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

meeting training criteria in OSHA’s public burden and associated response Proposed Collection Hazardous Waste Operations and time, should be directed to the: Office Title: CERTAS: A Researcher Emergency Response Regulations (29 of Management and Budget, Office of Configurable Self-Monitoring System. CFR 1910.120). As a cooperative Regulatory Affairs, New Executive agreement, there are additional Office Building, Room 10235, Type of Information Collection requirements for the progress report Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Request: NEW. section of the application. Grantees are Officer for NIH. To request more Need and Use of Information to provide their information in hard information on the proposed project or Collection: This study seeks to further copy as well as enter information into to obtain a copy of the data collection our understanding of the usefulness and the WETP Grantee Data Management plans and instruments, contact: Joseph potential advantages of electronic self- System. The information collected is T. Hughes, Jr., Director, Worker monitoring of behavior-specifically diet used by the Director through officers, Education and Training Program, and exercise behaviors associated with employees, experts, and consultants to Division of Extramural Research and reduction of cancer risks. Logs, diaries, evaluate applications based on technical Training, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12333, checklists and other self-monitoring merit to determine whether to make Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 or tools are a ubiquitous part of nearly all awards. Frequency of Response: call non-toll-free number (919) 541– cancer control research. The primary Biannual. Affected Public: Non-profit 0217 or E-mail your request, including objective of this study trial is to organizations. Type of Respondents: your address to [email protected]. compare paper-based self-monitoring to Grantees. The annual reporting burden Comments Due Date: Comments CERTAS self-monitoring devices is as follows: Estimated Number of regarding this information collection are (wireless sync and local sync) in a range Respondents: 18; Estimated Number of best assured of having their full effect if of cancer risk behaviors. The findings Responses per Respondent: 2; Average received within 30 days of the date of will provide valuable information Burden Hours per Response: 10; and this publication. regarding: (1) A comparison of the real Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours time recording compliance of these Dated: July 12, 2006. Requested: 360. The annualized cost to methods, (2) the pre-post effects of each respondents is estimated at: $10,764. Richard A. Freed, type of recording (paper versus There are no Capital Costs, Operating Associate Director for Management. electronic), and (3) the relative cost per Costs and/or Maintenance Costs to [FR Doc. 06–6371 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] valid recorded entry for the two report. BILLING CODE 4140–01–M methods. Request for Comments: Written Frequency of Response: Daily. comments and/or suggestions from the Affected Public: Individuals. public and affected agencies are invited DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Type of Respondents: Males and on one or more of the following points: females 18 years of age or older who are: (1) Whether the proposed collection of National Institutes of Health (1) Interested in improving their diet information is necessary for the proper and exercise behaviors as they relate to performance of the function of the Submission for OMB Review; cancer prevention, (2) proficient in agency, including whether the Comment Request; CERTAS: A utilizing a computer, and (3) generally information will have practical utility; Researcher Configurable Self- healthy with no medical conditions (2) The accuracy of the agency’s Monitoring System which would require a special diet or estimate of the burden of the proposed preclude regular exercise. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of collection of information, including the The annual reporting burden is as Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork validity of the methodology and follows: assumption use; (3) Ways to enhance Reduction Act of 1995, the National Estimated Number of Respondents: the quality, utility and clarity of the Cancer Institute, the National Institutes 200; information to be collected; and (4) of Health has submitted to the Office of Ways to minimize the burden of the Management and Budget (OMB) a Estimated Number of Responses per collection of information on those who request to review and approve the Respondent: 3; are to respond, including the use of information collection listed below. Average Burden Hours per Response: appropriate automated, electronic, This proposed information collection 1.9; mechanical, or other technological was previously published in the Federal Estimated Total Annual Burden collection techniques or other forms of Register on April 27, 2006 page 26381 Hours Requested: 1,148; information technology. and allowed 60 days for public Estimated Annualized Cost to Direct Comments to OMB: Written comment. No public comments were Respondents: $18,368.00. comments and/or suggestions regarding received. The purpose of this notice is There are no Capital Costs, Operating the item(s) contained in this notice, to allow an additional 30 days for public Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to especially regarding the estimated comment. report.

ESTIMATE HOURS OF BURDEN

Number of Frequency of Average time Annual hour Type of respondents respondents response per response burden

Male ...... 80 3 1.9134 459.264 Female ...... 120 3 1.9134 688.896

Total ...... 200 ...... 1148.16

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41225

Request for Comments: Written is hereby given of the following Dated: July 14, 2006. comments and /or suggestions from the meetings. Anna Snouffer, public and affected agencies are invited The meetings will be closed to the Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory on one or more of the following public in accordance with the Committee Policy. points:(1) Whether the proposed provisions set forth in sections [FR Doc. 06–6372 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] collection of information is necessary 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., BILLING CODE 4140–01–M for the proper performance of the as amended. The grant applications and function of the agency, including the discussions could disclose whether the information will have confidential trade secrets or commercial DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the property such as patentable material, HUMAN SERVICES agency’s estimate of the burden of the and personal information concerning proposed collection of information, individuals associated with the grant National Institutes of Health including the validity of the applications, the disclosure of which National Institute of Neurological methodology and assumptions used; (3) would constitute a clearly unwarranted Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and invasion of personal privacy. Meetings clarity of the information to be Name of Committee: National Institute of collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Pursuant to section 10(d) of the burden of the collection of information Emphasis Panel, Tuberculosis Research Unit Federal Advisory Committee Act, as on those who are to respond, including (TBRU). amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice the use of appropriate automated, Date: August 10, 2006. is hereby given of the following electric, mechanical, or other Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. meetings. Agenda: To review and evaluate contract technological collection techniques or proposals. The meetings will be closed to the other forms of information technology. Place: Courtyard Gaithersburg public in accordance with the Direct Comments to OMB: Written Washingtonian Center, 204 Boardwalk Place, provisions set forth in sections comments and/or suggestions regarding Gaithersburg, MD 20878. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., the item(s) contained in this notice, Contact Person: Darren D. Sledjeski, PhD, as amended. The grant applications and especially regarding the estimated Scientific Review Administrator, NIAID, the discussions could disclose DEA, Scientific Review Program, Room 3253, public burden and associated response confidential trade secrets or commercial 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC–7616, property such as patentable material, time, should be directed to the: Office Bethesda, MD 20892–7616. 301–451–2638. of Management and Budget, Office of [email protected]. and personal information concerning Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Name of Committee: National Institute of individuals associated with the grant Office Building, Room 10235, Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special applications, the disclosure of which Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Emphasis Panel, Unsolicited K99 Review. would constitute a clearly unwarranted Officer for NIH. To request more Date: August 11, 2006. invasion of person privacy. information on the proposal project or Time: 12 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Name of Committee: National Institute of to obtain a copy of the data collection Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special applications. plans and instruments, contact Dr. Jami Emphasis Panel, Headache Investigations. Place: National Institutes of Health, Date: July 31, 2006. Obermayer, Principal Investigator, PICS, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Inc., 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Agenda: To review and evaluate grant 480, Reston, Virginia 20191 at 703–758– Call). applications. 1798 or e-mail your request, including Contact Person: Mercy R. Prabhudas, PhD, Place: National Institutes of Health, your address to: Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive [email protected]. Review Program, Division of Extramural Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Comments Due Date: Comments Conference Call). Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD Contact Person: Andrea Sawczuk, DDS, regarding this information collection are 20892–7616. 301–451–2615. PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, best assured of having their full effect is [email protected]. Scientific Review Branch, Division of received within 30 days of the date of Name of Committee: National Institute of Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, this publication. Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room #3208, Emphasis Panel, HIV Anti-Viral Drug Dated: July 12, 2006. Bethesda, MD 20892. 301–496–0660. Discovery P01. [email protected]. Rachelle Ragland-Greene, Date: August 17, 2006. This notice is being published less than 15 NCI Project Clearance Liaison, National Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. days prior to the meeting due to the timining Institutes of Health. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant limitations imposed by the review and [FR Doc. E6–11559 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] applications. funding cycle. Place: National Institutes of Health, BILLING CODE 4101–01–P Name of Committee: National Institute of Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Emphasis Panel, Genetics Linkage Studies. Call). Date: August 3, 2006. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Contact Person: Clayton C. Huntley, PhD, HUMAN SERVICES Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Review Program, Division of Extramural National Institutes of Health applications. Activities, National Institutes of Health/ Place: National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, National Institute of Allergy and Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Bethesda, MD 20892–7616. 301–451–2570. Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed [email protected]. Conference Call). Meetings (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Contact Person: Andrea Sawczuk, DDS, Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Federal Advisory Committee Act, as Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Extramural Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room #3208,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41226 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Bethesda, MD 20892. 301–496–0660. Place: 1 Choke Cherry Road, Committee Name: Substance Abuse [email protected]. Conference Room, 5–1146, Rockville, and Mental Health Services Name of Committee: National Institute of MD 20857. Administration, Advisory Committee for Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Type: Closed: August 30, 2006—1:30 Women’s Services. Emphasis Panel, CounterACT–U54. p.m.–2:30 p.m. Date/Time: Open: Thursday, August Date: August 10–11, 2006. Contact: Cynthia A. Graham, M.S., 3, 2006, 12 noon–2 p.m. Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Executive Secretary, SAMHSA/CSAT Place: 1 Choke Cherry Road, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. National Advisory Council, 1 Choke Conference Room 8–1082, Rockville, Place: Williard Intercontinental Hotel, Cherry Road, Room 5–1036, Rockville, MD 20857. 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC MD 20857, telephone: (240) 276–1692, Contact: Carol Watkins, Executive 20004. fax: (240) 276–1690, e-mail: Secretary, Advisory Committee for Contact Person: Richard D. Crosland, PhD, [email protected]. Women’s Services, 1 Choke Cherry Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Dated: July 13, 2006. Road, Room 8–1002, Rockville, MD Review Branch, Division of Extramural Toian Vaughn, 20857, Telephone: (240) 276–2254, Fax: Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS-Neuroscience (240) 276–1024, e-mail: Committee Management Officer, Substance Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite [email protected]. 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892–9529. Abuse and Mental Health, Services 301–594–0635. [email protected]. Administration. Dated: July 13, 2006. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance [FR Doc. E6–11533 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Toian Vaughn, Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research BILLING CODE 4162–20–P Committee Management Officer, Substance Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Abuse and Mental Health Services Biological Basis Research in the Administration. Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND [FR Doc. E6–11534 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] HHS) HUMAN SERVICES BILLING CODE 4162–20–P Dated: July 14, 2006. Anna Snouffer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Committee Policy. Office for Women’s Services; Notice of SECURITY [FR Doc. 06–6373 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Meeting BILLING CODE 4140–01–M Coast Guard Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, [USCG–2006–25378] notice is hereby given of a Substance DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Abuse and Mental Health Services Chemical Transportation Advisory HUMAN SERVICES Administration’s (SAMHSA) Advisory Committee Committee for Women’s Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health teleconference meeting to be held in AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Services Administration August 2006. ACTION: Notice of meeting. The teleconference meeting will be Center for Substance Abuse open and include discussions on SUMMARY: The Chemical Transportation Treatment; Notice of Meeting SAMHSA’s women’s activities and Advisory Committee (CTAC) programs for fiscal year 2006 as they Subcommittee on Hazardous Cargo Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, Transportation Security (HCTS) will notice is hereby given of a relate to the Agency’s priority matrix. The meeting will also include updates meet to discuss various issues relating Teleconference Meeting of the Center to the marine transportation of for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) on SAMHSA’s budget and reauthorization. hazardous materials in bulk. The CTAC National Advisory Council to be held Working Groups on Barge Emissions August 30, 2006. The public is invited to attend the meeting in person or listen to the and Placarding; the International The meeting will include the review, discussions via telephone. Due to Convention for the Prevention of discussion and evaluation of grant limited space, seating will be on a Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL) applications reviewed by IRGs. registration-only basis. To register, Annex II; and Marine Vapor Control Therefore, the meeting will be closed to contact the Committee Executive Systems will also meet to discuss the public as determined by the Secretary, Ms. Carol Watkins (see environmental issues and proposed SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance contact information below), to obtain changes to regulations. These meetings with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and 5 the teleconference call-in number and will be open to the public. U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d). access code. Please communicate with DATES: The MARPOL Annex II Working A summary of the meeting and a Ms. Watkins to make arrangements to Group will meet on Tuesday, July 25, roster of Council members may be comment or to request special 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. The obtained by accessing the SAMHSA accommodations for persons with HCTS Subcommittee will meet on Advisory Council Web site disabilities. Wednesday, July 26, 2006, from 8:30 (www.samhsa.gov) as soon as possible Substantive program information and a.m. to 4 p.m. The Marine Vapor Control after the meeting, or by communicating a roster of Committee members may be System Working Group will meet on with the contact whose name and obtained after the meeting by contacting Thursday, July 27, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. telephone number are listed below. Ms. Carol Watkins (see contact to 12:30 p.m. The Barge Emissions and Committee Name: Substance Abuse information below) or by accessing the Placarding Working Group will meet on and Mental Health Services SAMHSA Council Web site Thursday, July 27, 2006, from 1 p.m. to Administration, Center for Substance (www.samhsa.gov). The transcript for 5 p.m. These meetings may close early Abuse Treatment National Advisory the session will also be available on the if all business is finished. Written Council. SAMHSA Council Web site within 3 material and requests to make oral Meeting Date: August 30, 2006. weeks after the meeting. presentations should reach the Coast

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41227

Guard on or before July 24, 2006. Agenda of Barge Emissions and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Requests to have a copy of your material Placarding Working Group Meeting on hereby given that, in a letter dated July distributed to each member of the Thursday, July 27, 2006: 5, 2006, the President declared a major Committee should reach the Coast (1) Introduce Working Group disaster under the authority of the Guard on or before July 24, 2006. members and attendees. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at (2) Develop plan to assist first Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group responder identifying cargoes on inland 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: Offices, 15635 Jacintoport Blvd, barges. I have determined that the damage in Houston, TX 77015. Send written Procedural certain areas of the State of Delaware material and requests to make oral resulting from severe storms and flooding presentations to Commander Robert J. These meetings are open to the beginning on June 23, 2006, and continuing, Hennessy, Executive Director of CTAC, public. Please note that the meetings is of sufficient severity and magnitude to Commandant (G–PSO–3), U.S. Coast may close early if all business is warrant a major disaster declaration under Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second finished. At the discretion of the Chair, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593– members of the public may make oral Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121– 0001 or e-mail: [email protected]. presentations during the meetings 5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare This notice is available on the Internet generally limited to 5 minutes. If you that such a major disaster exists in the State at http://dms.dot.gov. would like to make an oral presentation of Delaware. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: at a meeting, please notify the Executive In order to provide Federal assistance, you Commander Robert J. Hennessy, Director and submit written material on are hereby authorized to allocate from funds Executive Director of CTAC, or Ms. Sara or before July 24, 2006. If you would available for these purposes such amounts as Ju, Assistant to the Executive Director, like a copy of your material distributed you find necessary for Federal disaster telephone 202–372–1425, fax 202–372– to each member of the Committee in assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide Public 1926. advance of a meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director (see Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of Mitigation throughout the State, and any ADDRESSES) no later than July 24, 2006. these meetings is given under the other forms of assistance under the Stafford Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 Information on Services for Individuals Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent U.S.C. App. 2. With Disabilities with the requirement that Federal assistance Agenda of MARPOL Annex II be supplemental, any Federal funds provided Working Group Meeting on Tuesday, For information on facilities or under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance July 25, 2006: services for individuals with and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 (1) Introduce Working Group disabilities, or to request special percent of the total eligible costs. If Other members and attendees. assistance at the meeting, telephone the Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the (2) Review and edit draft guidance Executive Director as soon as possible. Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, document for the U.S. implementation Dated: July 12, 2006. Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible of revisions to MARPOL Annex II and Howard L. Hime, costs. Further, you are authorized to make the International Code for the Acting Director of National and International Construction and Equipment of Ships changes to this declaration to the extent Standards, Assistant Commandant for allowable under the Stafford Act. Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk Prevention. (IBC Code). [FR Doc. E6–11488 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] The Federal Emergency Management Agenda of the HCTS Subcommittee BILLING CODE 4910–15–P Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that on Wednesday, July 26, 2006: pursuant to the authority vested in the (1) Introduce Subcommittee members Director, under Executive Order 12148, and attendees. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND as amended, Glen R. Sachtleben, of (2) Finalize definition and supporting SECURITY comments for certain dangerous cargo FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal (CDC) residues. Coordinating Officer for this declared Federal Emergency Management disaster. (3) Discuss current Notice of Arrival Agency regulations, current problems with I do hereby determine the following regulations and possible solutions. Note: [FEMA–1654–DR] areas of the State of Delaware to have The Subcommittee is especially been affected adversely by this declared interested in hearing from any member Delaware; Major Disaster and Related major disaster: Determinations of the maritime industry or associations Sussex County for Public Assistance. representing the maritime industry who AGENCY: Federal Emergency All counties within the State of Delaware have concerns with the Notice of Arrival Management Agency, Department of are eligible to apply for assistance under the regulations. Homeland Security. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Agenda of Marine Vapor Control ACTION: Notice. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Systems Working Group Meeting on Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Thursday, July 27, 2006: SUMMARY: This is a notice of the for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, (1) Introduce Working Group Presidential declaration of a major Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora members and attendees. disaster for the State of Delaware Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis (2) Review vapor balancing operations (FEMA–1654–DR), dated July 5, 2006, Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services during cargo unloading. and related determinations. Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment (3) Review previous CTAC Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management DATES: Effective Date: July 5, 2006. recommendations on vapor balancing Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and operations during cargo unloading. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and (4) Develop recommendations for Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Households Disaster Housing Operations; conducting vapor balancing operations Emergency Management Agency, 97.050, Individuals and Households during cargo unloading. Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41228 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation This cost share is effective as of the available for these purposes such amounts as Grant Program.) date of the President’s major disaster you find necessary for Federal disaster declaration. assistance and administrative expenses. R. David Paulison, You are authorized to provide Public Under Secretary for Federal Emergency (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Management and Director of FEMA. Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Mitigation throughout the State, and any [FR Doc. E6–11509 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, other forms of assistance under the Stafford Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent BILLING CODE 9110–10–P Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis with the requirement that Federal assistance Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services be supplemental, any Federal funds provided Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 SECURITY Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Federal Emergency Management Households Disaster Housing Operations; Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Agency 97.050, Individuals and Households Federal funding under that program will also Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible [FEMA–1603–DR] Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation costs. Further, you are authorized to make Grant Program.) changes to this declaration to the extent Louisiana; Amendment No. 11 to allowable under the Stafford Act. Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration R. David Paulison, The Federal Emergency Management AGENCY: Federal Emergency Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that Management and Director of FEMA. Management Agency, Department of pursuant to the authority vested in the Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E6–11512 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Acting Director, under Executive Order ACTION: Notice. BILLING CODE 9110–10–P 12148, as amended, William Lokey, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice Coordinating Officer for this declared DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND of a major disaster for the State of disaster. Louisiana (FEMA–1603–DR), dated SECURITY I do hereby determine the following August 29, 2005, and related Federal Emergency Management areas of the State of Maryland to have determinations. Agency been affected adversely by this declared DATES: Effective Date: June 29, 2006. major disaster: Caroline and Dorchester [FEMA–1652–DR] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Counties for Public Assistance. Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal All counties within the State of Maryland; Major Disaster and Related Maryland are eligible to apply for Emergency Management Agency, Determinations Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is AGENCY: Federal Emergency hereby given that, in a letter dated June Management Agency, Department of (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic 29, 2006, the President amended the Homeland Security. Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, ACTION: Notice. cost-sharing arrangements concerning Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Federal funds provided under the SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis authority of the Robert T. Stafford Presidential declaration of a major Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Disaster Relief and Emergency Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment disaster for the State of Maryland Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management (FEMA–1652–DR), dated July 2, 2006, (Stafford Act), in a letter to R. David Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and and related determinations. Paulison, Director, Federal Emergency Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; Management Agency, Department of EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 97.050, Individuals and Households Homeland Security, as follows: Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal I have determined that the damage in Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation certain areas of the State of Louisiana Emergency Management Agency, Grant Program.) resulting from Hurricane Katrina, during the Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. R. David Paulison, period of August 29 to November 1, 2005, is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is of sufficient severity and magnitude that hereby given that, in a letter dated July Under Secretary for Federal Emergency special cost-sharing arrangements are 2, 2006, the President declared a major Management and Director of FEMA. warranted regarding Federal funds provided disaster under the authority of the [FR Doc. E6–11507 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and BILLING CODE 9110–10–P and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act). 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: Therefore, I amend my declarations of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND August 29, 2005, September 1, 2005, October I have determined that the damage in SECURITY 22, 2005, November 19, 2005, and December certain areas of the State of Maryland 20, 2005, to authorize Federal funds for resulting from severe storms, flooding, and Federal Emergency Management debris removal, including direct Federal tornadoes beginning on June 22, 2006, and Agency assistance, under the Public Assistance continuing, is of sufficient severity and program, at 100 percent of total eligible costs, magnitude to warrant a major disaster [FEMA–1604–DR] through and including December 31, 2006, declaration under the Robert T. Stafford for the parishes of Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Mississippi; Amendment No. 14 to Tammany, Washington, and Plaquemines. Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act). Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration Please notify Governor Blanco and the Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster Federal Coordinating Officer of this exists in the State of Maryland. AGENCY: Federal Emergency amendment to my major disaster In order to provide Federal assistance, you Management Agency, Department of declarations. are hereby authorized to allocate from funds Homeland Security.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41229

ACTION: Notice. Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Grant Program.) Further, you are authorized to make changes SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice to this declaration to the extent allowable R. David Paulison, under the Stafford Act. of a major disaster for the State of Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Mississippi (FEMA–1604–DR), dated Management and Director of FEMA. The time period prescribed for the August 29, 2005, and related [FR Doc. E6–11513 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for determinations. BILLING CODE 9110–10–P Public Facility and Public Housing DATES: Effective Date: June 29, 2006. Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND a period not to exceed six months after Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal SECURITY the date of this declaration. Emergency Management Agency, The Federal Emergency Management Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that Agency pursuant to the authority vested in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Director, under Executive Order 12148, [FEMA–1653–DR] hereby given that, in a letter dated June as amended, Peter J. Martinasco, of 29, 2006, the President amended the New Jersey; Major Disaster and FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal cost-sharing arrangements concerning Related Determinations Coordinating Officer for this declared Federal funds provided under the disaster. authority of the Robert T. Stafford AGENCY: Federal Emergency I do hereby determine the following Disaster Relief and Emergency Management Agency, Department of areas of the State of New Jersey to have Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 Homeland Security. been affected adversely by this declared (Stafford Act), in a letter to R. David ACTION: Notice. major disaster: Paulison, Director, Federal Emergency Hunterdon, Mercer, and Warren Counties Management Agency, Department of SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major for Individual Assistance. Hunterdon, Homeland Security, as follows: Mercer, Sussex, and Warren Counties for disaster for the State of New Jersey debris removal and emergency protective I have determined that the damage in (FEMA–1653–DR), dated July 7, 2006, certain areas of the State of Mississippi measures [Categories A and B] under the and related determinations. resulting from Hurricane Katrina, during the Public Assistance Program, including direct period of August 29 to October 14, 2005, is DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2006. Federal assistance. of sufficient severity and magnitude that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All counties within the State of New Jersey special cost-sharing arrangements are Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal are eligible to apply for assistance under the warranted regarding Federal funds provided Emergency Management Agency, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 5121–5206. for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, hereby given that, in a letter dated July Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Therefore, I amend my declarations of 7, 2006, the President declared a major August 29, 2005, September 1, 2005, October Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 22, 2005, November 19, 2005, December 21, disaster under the authority of the Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services 2005, and March 7, 2006, to authorize Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Federal funds for debris removal (Category Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management A), including direct Federal assistance, under 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and the Public Assistance program at 100 percent I have determined that the damage in Households Disaster Housing Operations; of total eligible costs through and including certain areas of the State of New Jersey 97.050, Individuals and Households May 15, 2007. The area eligible for assistance resulting from severe storms and flooding Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public is limited to existing projects in the beginning on June 23, 2006, and continuing, Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Mississippi Sound. The Sound also is of sufficient severity and magnitude to Grant Program.) incorporates rivers and tributaries in the warrant a major disaster declaration under southern Mississippi region that are part of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and R. David Paulison, the intra-coastal waterway system. Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121– Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Please notify Governor Barbour and the 5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare Management and Director of FEMA. Federal Coordinating Officer of this that such a major disaster exists in the State [FR Doc. E6–11508 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] amendment to my major disaster of New Jersey. declarations. In order to provide Federal assistance, you BILLING CODE 9110–10–P are hereby authorized to allocate from funds This cost share is effective as of the available for these purposes such amounts as date of the President’s major disaster you find necessary for Federal disaster DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND declaration. assistance and administrative expenses. SECURITY You are authorized to provide Individual (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and assistance for debris removal Federal Emergency Management Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used and emergency protective measures Agency for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, (Categories A and B) under the Public Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Assistance program in the designated areas, [FEMA–1650–DR] Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis as well as Hazard Mitigation throughout the Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services State, and any other forms of assistance New York; Major Disaster and Related Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment under the Stafford Act you may deem Determinations Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management appropriate. Direct Federal assistance is Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and authorized. Consistent with the requirement AGENCY: Federal Emergency Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Management Agency, Department of Households Disaster Housing Operations; Federal funds provided under the Stafford Homeland Security. 97.050, Individuals and Households Act for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, ACTION: Notice. Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public and Other Needs Assistance will be limited

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41230 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Herkimer, emergency protective measures [Categories Presidential declaration of a major Montgomery, Otsego, Sullivan, and Ulster A and B] under the Public Assistance disaster for the State of New York Counties for debris removal and emergency program, including direct Federal (FEMA–1650–DR), dated July 1, 2006, protective measures (Categories A and B) assistance). under the Public Assistance program, Oneida, Orange, Schoharie, and Tioga and related determinations. including direct Federal assistance. Counties for Individual Assistance. DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2006. All counties within the State of New York (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: are eligible to apply for assistance under the Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Emergency Management Agency, (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services hereby given that, in a letter dated July Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 1, 2006, the President declared a major Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and disaster under the authority of the Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Households Disaster Housing Operations; Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Assistance; 97.048, Individual and 97.050 Individuals and Households 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: Household Housing; 97.049, Individual and Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Household Disaster Housing Operations; Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation I have determined that the damage in 97.050, Individual and Household Program— Grant Program.) certain areas of the State of New York Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance resulting from severe storms and flooding R. David Paulison, beginning on June 26, 2006, and continuing, Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Under Secretary for Federal Emergency is of sufficient severity and magnitude to Program.) Management and Director of FEMA. warrant a major disaster declaration under R. David Paulison, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and [FR Doc. E6–11504 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121– BILLING CODE 9110–10–P Management and Director of FEMA. 5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State [FR Doc. E6–11502 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] of New York. BILLING CODE 9110–10–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND In order to provide Federal assistance, you SECURITY are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Federal Emergency Management you find necessary for Federal disaster SECURITY Agency assistance and administrative expenses. You are authorized to provide assistance Federal Emergency Management [FEMA–1650–DR] for debris removal and emergency protective Agency measures (Categories A and B) under the New York; Amendment No. 2 to Notice Public Assistance program in the designated [FEMA–1650–DR] of a Major Disaster Declaration areas, as well as Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice AGENCY: Federal Emergency assistance under the Stafford Act you may of a Major Disaster Declaration Management Agency, Department of deem appropriate, subject to completion of Homeland Security. Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs), AGENCY: Federal Emergency ACTION: Notice. unless you determine that the incident is of Management Agency, Department of such unusual severity and magnitude that Homeland Security. SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice PDAs are not required to determine the need ACTION: Notice. of a major disaster declaration for the for supplemental Federal assistance pursuant State of New York (FEMA–1650–DR), to 44 CFR 206.33(d). Direct Federal SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice assistance is authorized. dated July 1, 2006, and related of a major disaster declaration for the determinations. Consistent with the requirement that State of New York (FEMA–1650–DR), Federal assistance be supplemental, any DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2006. Federal funds provided under the Stafford dated July 1, 2006, and related Act for Public Assistance and Hazard determinations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the DATES: Effective Date: July 3, 2006. total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance Emergency Management Agency, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: is later warranted, Federal funding under that Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. program will also be limited to 75 percent of Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice the total eligible costs. of a major disaster declaration for the Further, you are authorized to make Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. State of New York is hereby amended to changes to this declaration to the extent SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice include the following areas among those allowable under the Stafford Act. of a major disaster declaration for the areas determined to have been adversely State of New York is hereby amended to The Federal Emergency Management affected by the catastrophe declared a include the Individual Assistance Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that major disaster by the President in his Program for the following areas among pursuant to the authority vested in the declaration of July 1, 2006: Director, under Executive Order 12148, those areas determined to have been as amended, Marianne C. Jackson, of adversely affected by the catastrophe Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Herkimer, FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal declared a major disaster by the Montgomery, Otsego, Sullivan, and Ulster President in his declaration of July 1, Counties for Public Assistance [Categories Coordinating Officer for this declared C–G] (already designated for Individual disaster. 2006: Assistance and debris removal and I do hereby determine the following Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Herkimer, emergency protective measures [Categories areas of the State of New York to have Montgomery, Otsego, Sullivan, and Ulster A and B] under the Public Assistance been affected adversely by this declared Counties for Individual Assistance (already program, including direct Federal major disaster: designated for debris removal and Assistance).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41231

Oneida, Schoharie, and Tioga Counties for In order to provide Federal assistance, you DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Public Assistance (already designated for are hereby authorized to allocate from funds SECURITY Individual Assistance). available for these purposes such amounts as Cortland, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, you find necessary for Federal disaster Federal Emergency Management Madison, Rensselaer, Schenectady, and assistance and administrative expenses. Tompkins Counties for Public Assistance. Agency You are authorized to provide Individual (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used [FEMA–1649–DR] Mitigation throughout the State, and any for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora other forms of assistance under the Stafford Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 3 to Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services with the requirement that Federal assistance Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment be supplemental, any Federal funds provided AGENCY: Federal Emergency Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation Management Agency, Department of Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and and Other Needs Assistance will be limited Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Homeland Security. Households Disaster Housing Operations; Public Assistance is later requested and ACTION: Notice. 97.050, Individuals and Households warranted, Federal funds provided under Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public that program will also be limited to 75 Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice Grant Program) percent of the total eligible costs. Further, of a major disaster declaration for the you are authorized to make changes to this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania R. David Paulison, declaration to the extent allowable under the (FEMA–1649–DR), dated June 30, 2006, Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Stafford Act. Management and Director of FEMA. and related determinations. [FR Doc. E6–11505 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] The time period prescribed for the DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2006. BILLING CODE 9110–10–P implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Facility and Public Housing Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for Emergency Management Agency, SECURITY a period not to exceed six months after Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. the date of this declaration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice Federal Emergency Management The Federal Emergency Management Agency of a major disaster declaration for the Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is [FEMA–1651–DR] pursuant to the authority vested in the hereby amended to include the Director, under Executive Order 12148, following areas among those areas Ohio; Major Disaster and Related as amended, Jesse F. Munoz, of FEMA determined to have been adversely Determinations is appointed to act as the Federal affected by the catastrophe declared a AGENCY: Federal Emergency Coordinating Officer for this declared major disaster by the President in his Management Agency, Department of disaster. declaration of June 30, 2006: I do hereby determine the following Homeland Security. Franklin and Montgomery Counties for ACTION: Notice. areas of the State of Ohio to have been Individual Assistance. affected adversely by this declared Bucks, Columbia, and Northampton Counties SUMMARY: This is a notice of the major disaster: Presidential declaration of a major for Individual Assistance (already disaster for the State of Ohio (FEMA– Cuyahoga, Erie, Huron, Lucas, Sandusky, and designated for debris removal and 1651–DR), dated July 2, 2006, and Stark Counties for Individual Assistance. emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance related determinations. All counties within the State of Ohio are program, including direct Federal DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2006. eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. assistance). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Emergency Management Agency, Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis hereby given that, in a letter dated July Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services 2, 2006, the President declared a major Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment disaster under the authority of the Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: Households Disaster Housing Operations; Households Disaster Housing Operations; I have determined that the damage in 97.050, Individuals and Households 97.050, Individuals and Households certain areas of the State of Ohio resulting Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public from severe storms, tornadoes, straight line Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation winds, and flooding during the period of Grant Program.) Grant Program.) June 21–23, 2006, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster R. David Paulison, R. David Paulison, declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Management and Director of FEMA. Management and Director of FEMA. Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster [FR Doc. E6–11506 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. E6–11500 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] exists in the State of Ohio. BILLING CODE 9110–10–P BILLING CODE 9110–10–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41232 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECURITY SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Agency

[FEMA–1649–DR] [FEMA–1649–DR] [FEMA–1649–DR]

Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 2 to Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 1 to Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency AGENCY: Federal Emergency AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Management Agency, Department of Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security. Homeland Security. ACTION: Notice. ACTION: Notice. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the of a major disaster declaration for the of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA–1649–DR), dated June 30, 2006, (FEMA–1649–DR), dated June 30, 2006, (FEMA–1649–DR), dated June 30, 2006, and related determinations. and related determinations. and related determinations. DATES: Effective Date: July 5, 2006. DATES: Effective Date: July 4, 2006. DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration for the of a major disaster declaration for the of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the hereby amended to include the hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas Individual Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 30, 2006: major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 30, 2006: Berks, Chester, and Pike Counties for declaration of June 30, 2006: Dauphin, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Individual Assistance. Monroe, Schuylkill, and Wayne Counties for and Montour Counties for Individual Bradford and Luzerne Counties for Individual Assistance. Assistance. Individual Assistance (already designated Susquehanna and Wyoming Counties for Northumberland County for Individual for debris removal and emergency Individual Assistance (already designated Assistance (already designated for debris protective measures [Categories A and B] for debris removal and emergency removal and emergency protective under the Public Assistance program, protective measures [Categories A and B] measures [Categories A and B] under the including direct Federal assistance). under the Public Assistance program, Public Assistance program, including (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic including direct Federal assistance). direct Federal assistance). Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and 97.050, Individuals and Households Households Disaster Housing Operations; Households Disaster Housing Operations; Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public 97.050, Individuals and Households 97.050, Individuals and Households Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Grant Program.) Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) Grant Program.) R. David Paulison, Under Secretary for Federal Emergency R. David Paulison, R. David Paulison, Management and Director of FEMA. Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Under Secretary for Federal Emergency [FR Doc. E6–11501 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Management and Director of FEMA. Management and Director of FEMA. BILLING CODE 9110–10–P [FR Doc. E6–11503 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. E6–11511 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6718–10–P BILLING CODE 9110–10–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41233

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND is later warranted, Federal funding under that ACTION: Notice of Invitation Coal SECURITY program will also be limited to 75 percent of Exploration License Application MTM the total eligible costs. For a period of up to 95732. Federal Emergency Management 72 hours, you are authorized to fund assistance for debris removal and emergency Agency SUMMARY: protective measures, including direct Federal Pursuant to section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as [FEMA–1649–DR] assistance, at 100 percent of the total eligible costs. amended by section 4 of the Federal Pennsylvania; Major Disaster and Further, you are authorized to make Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, Related Determinations changes to this declaration to the extent 90 Stat. 1083, 30 U.S.C. 201 (b), and to allowable under the Stafford Act. the regulations adopted as 43 CFR 3410, AGENCY: Federal Emergency The Federal Emergency Management interested parties are hereby invited to Management Agency, Department of Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that participate with Spring Creek Coal Homeland Security. pursuant to the authority vested in the Company on a pro rata cost sharing ACTION: Notice. Director, under Executive Order 12148, basis in its program for the exploration as amended, Tom Davies, of FEMA is of coal deposits owned by the United SUMMARY: This is a notice of the appointed to act as the Federal States of America in lands located in Big Presidential declaration of a major Coordinating Officer for this declared Horn County, Montana, encompassing disaster for the Commonwealth of disaster. 6,051.92 acres. Pennsylvania (FEMA–1649–DR), dated I do hereby determine the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June 30, 2006, and related areas of the Commonwealth of Robert Giovanini, Mining Engineer, or determinations. Pennsylvania to have been affected Connie Schaff, Land Law Examiner, DATES: Effective Date: June 30, 2006. adversely by this declared major Branch of Solid Minerals (MT–921), disaster: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Bradford, Bucks, Columbia, Luzerne, Montana State Office, Billings, Montana Emergency Management Agency, Northampton, Northumberland, 59101–4669, telephone (406) 896–5084 Susquehanna, and Wyoming Counties for or (406) 896–5060, respectively. Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2705. debris removal and emergency protective SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is measures (Categories A and B) under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lands hereby given that, in a letter dated June Public Assistance Program, including to be explored for coal deposits are 30, 2006, the President declared a major direct Federal assistance. For a period of described as follows: up to 72 hours, assistance for debris disaster under the authority of the T.8 S., R.39 E., P.M.M. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal Sec. 4: Lots 1 through 24 Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. assistance, will be provided at 100 percent Sec. 5: Lots 1 through 24 5121–5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows: of the total eligible costs. Sec. 8: Lot 1 Sec. 14: S1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 I have determined that the damage in All counties within the Commonwealth of Sec. 15: S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 certain areas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible to apply for Sec. 20: E1⁄2 Pennsylvania resulting from severe storms, assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Sec. 21: S1⁄2N1⁄2, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2 flooding, and mudslides beginning on June Program. Sec. 22: NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 23, 2006, and continuing, is of sufficient (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic N1⁄2N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, severity and magnitude to warrant a major Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 disaster declaration under the Robert T. for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Sec. 28: N1⁄2 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Sec. 35: S1⁄2 Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5206 (the Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis T.9 S., R.39 E., P.M.M. Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Sec. 1: Lots 1 through 4, W1⁄2E1⁄2, W1⁄2 a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Sec. 2: All of Pennsylvania. Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management T.8 S., R.40 E., P.M.M. In order to provide Federal assistance, you Assistance; 97.048, Individual and Sec. 31: Lots 1 through 4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, are hereby authorized to allocate from funds Household Housing; 97.049, Individual and E1⁄2SW1⁄4 available for these purposes such amounts as Household Disaster Housing Operations; T.9 S., R.40 E., P.M.M. you find necessary for Federal disaster 97.050, Individual and Household Program— Sec. 5: Lots 3 through 4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4 assistance and administrative expenses. Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Sec. 6: Lots 1 through 7, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, You are authorized to provide assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4 for debris removal and emergency protective Program.) measures (Categories A and B) under the R. David Paulison, Any party electing to participate in Public Assistance program in the designated Under Secretary for Federal Emergency this exploration program must send areas, as well as Hazard Mitigation written notice to both the State Director, throughout the State, and any other forms of Management and Director of FEMA. assistance under the Stafford Act you may [FR Doc. E6–11516 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] BLM, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101–4669, and Spring Creek deem appropriate, subject to completion of BILLING CODE 9110–10–P Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs), Coal Company, P.O. Box 67, Decker, unless you determine that the incident is of Montana 59025. Such written notice such unusual severity and magnitude that DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR must refer to serial number MTM 95732 PDAs are not required to determine the need and be received no later than 30 for supplemental Federal assistance pursuant Bureau of Land Management calendar days after publication of this to 44 CFR 206.33(d). Direct Federal Notice in the Federal Register or 10 assistance is authorized. [MT–921–06–1320–EL–P; MTM 95732] calendar days after the last publication Consistent with the requirement that of this Notice in the Sheridan Press Federal assistance be supplemental, any Notice of Invitation—Coal Exploration Federal funds provided under the Stafford License Application MTM 95732 newspaper, whichever is later. This Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Notice will be published once a week Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, for two (2) consecutive weeks in the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance Interior. Sheridan Press, Sheridan, Wyoming.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41234 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

The proposed exploration program is • 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, cultural values, important watershed fully described, and will be conducted Wyoming 82003. values, unique wildlife habitat, and pursuant to an exploration plan to be • Bureau of Land Management, Rock feature crucial and overlapping big approved by the Bureau of Land Springs Field Office, game habitat the Steamboat Mountain Management. The exploration plan, as • 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Management Area has been established. submitted by Spring Creek Coal Springs, Wyoming 82901. The Jack Morrow Hills CAP is Company, is available for public To request a copy of the ROD, please essentially the same as the Proposed inspection at the BLM, 5001 Southgate write or telephone the BLM contacts Plan in the Jack Morrow Hills CAP/FEIS Drive, Billings, Montana, during regular listed below. published in July 14, 2004 (69 FR business hours (9 a.m. to 4 p.m.), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 42201). No inconsistencies with State or Monday through Friday. Michael R. Holbert, Field Manager, or local plans, policies, or programs were Dated: June 7, 2006. Renee Dana, Jack Morrow Hills CAP identified during the Governor’s consistency review of the CAP/FEIS. As Robert Giovanini, Team Leader, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, a result, only editorial modifications Acting Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals. were made in the JMH CAP. These [FR Doc. E6–11468 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901. Requests for a copy of modifications correct and clarify errors BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P the ROD may be sent electronically to: that were noted during review of the [email protected] with CAP/FEIS and provide further clarification for some of the decisions. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ‘‘JMH CAP’’ in the subject line. Mr. Holbert and Ms. Dana may be reached Dated: March 28, 2006. Bureau of Land Management at (307) 352–0256. Walter E. George, [WY–040–06–1610–DT] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Jack Acting State Director. Morrow Hills CAP/ROD was developed [FR Doc. E6–11590 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Notice of Availability of the Record of with broad public participation through BILLING CODE 4310–22–P Decision for the Jack Morrow Hills a 4-year collaborative planning process. Coordinated Activity Plan and Green The Jack Morrow Hills CAP/ROD is River Resource Management Plan designed to achieve or maintain desired DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Amendment, Wyoming future conditions developed through the planning process. To meet the desired National Park Service AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, resource conditions, it includes a series Interior. Abbreviated Final Environmental of management actions for resources in ACTION: Notice of availability. Impact Statement and General the area including upland and riparian Management Plan; Minidoka SUMMARY: In accordance with the vegetation, wildlife habitats, heritage Internment National Monument; Federal Land Policy and Management and visual resources, air quality, Jerome County, ID; Notice of Act and the National Environmental sensitive species, special management Availability Policy Act, the Bureau of Land areas, livestock grazing, minerals Management (BLM) announces the including oil and gas, and recreation. Summary: Pursuant to section availability of the Record of Decision In response to the 30 day protest 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental (ROD) for the Jack Morrow Hills period that ended on August 16, 2004, Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as Coordinated Activity Plan (CAP) and a total of 1,011 protests were received amended), and the Council on Green River Resource Management Plan by BLM. The BLM reviewed and Environmental Quality Regulations (40 (RMP) Amendment. The ROD responded to all submittals. The ROD CFR part 1500–1508), the National Park documents the BLM’s decision to includes a decision regarding the Service (NPS), Department of the approve a land use plan amendment implementation of the project that may Interior, has prepared an abbreviated that addresses approximately 585,000 be appealed in accordance with 43 CFR final environmental impact statement acres of public land located in part 4. The 30-day appeal period will (FEIS) for the proposed General Sweetwater, Sublette, and Fremont start on the date this Notice of Management Plan (GMP) for Minidoka counties in southwestern Wyoming. The Availability is published in the Federal Internment National Monument located JMH CAP/Green River RMP Register. in southern Idaho. This FEIS describes Amendment contains land-use plan The JMH CAP and ROD modify and analyzes four GMP alternatives that decisions that supersede previous land- existing special management areas and respond to both NPS planning use planning decisions made in the establish new ones. The JMH planning requirements and to the public’s Green River RMP and completes area includes five Areas of Critical concerns and issues, identified during decisions deferred in the Green River Environmental Concern (ACECs) the extensive scoping and public RMP. The CAP/ROD went into effect on previously designated under the Green involvement process. Each alternative the date the Wyoming State Director River RMP. Four of the designated five presents management strategies for signed the ROD. Publication of this ACECs remain unchanged. The fifth, resource protection and preservation, NOA today announces and commences Steamboat Mountain ACEC, has been education and interpretation, visitor use the 30-day appeal period for a project expanded by about 4,000 acres and and facilities, land protection and implementation included in the ROD. includes the Indian Gap historic trail boundaries, and long-term operations ADDRESSES: The ROD will be available and key habitats types such as the rare and management of the national electronically on the following Web site: sagebrush/scurfpea vegetation type. monument. The potential http://www.wy.blm.gov/jmhcap. To protect important scientific values, environmental consequences of all the Copies of the Jack Morrow Hills CAP/ the West Sand Dunes Archaeological alternatives, and mitigation strategies, ROD are available for public inspection District has been established as a new are identified and analyzed in the FEIS. at the following BLM office locations: management area. So that the BLM may In addition to a ‘‘no-action’’ alternative, • Bureau of Land Management, mange a portion of the public lands an ‘‘environmentally preferred’’ Wyoming State Office with important Native American alternative is identified.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41235

Background: A Notice of Intent and California in July and August 2005 immersion into the historic scene, formally initiating the conservation to provide further opportunity to learn interaction with a variety of educational planning and environmental impact about the proposed plan and to offer and interpretive media and personal analysis process was published in the comments; over 200 people attended services, and participation in creative Federal Register on April 24, 2002. these meetings. During the formal and self-directed activities. Off-site Early public involvement methods public comment period, which closed visitor education and interpretation included news releases, public meetings on September 19, 2005, the NPS would be conducted through diverse and workshops, presentations and received comments from over 365 programs developed in cooperation with meetings with interested publics, individuals and organizations, partners, including school districts, newsletter mailings, and Web site including 150 written responses (all museums, and educational and legacy postings. This strong public outreach substantive comments, and responses, organizations and institutions. was deemed necessary for successful are documented in the abbreviated Final The proposed plan would use various planning, given the nature and EIS). preservation techniques to protect and sensitivity of the national monument’s Throughout the planning process, the enhance historic resources, such as history, the speed in which the national public’s comments and delineation, stabilization, restoration, monument was established, as well as recommendations have provided the rehabilitation, and limited its remote location. foundation for the new GMP, reconstruction. These historic resources Preceding the formal planning represented in the national monument’s would be used for interpretive purposes process, NPS staff conducted purpose, significance, interpretive to accurately and authentically convey informational meetings about the themes, alternatives, and particularly as the history and significance of the national monument with Japanese incorporated in the proposed action. national monument. The establishment American organizations, community Proposed Plan and Alternatives: of one complete barracks block exhibit organizations, various governmental Alternative A is the ‘‘no-action’’ in its original location and configuration entities, potential stakeholder groups, alternative and would continue current would be the cornerstone of interpretive and individuals during the spring, management practices, maintaining services and facilities at the national summer and early fall of 2002. general management guidance for monument, essential for understanding Approximately 50 meetings were held incremental and minimal changes in and appreciation of the incarceration in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and park operations, staffing, visitor experience and the significance of the Alaska during this time, and services, and facilities to accommodate national monument. A visitor contact approximately 2,000 people were visitors. While the historic resources of facility and maintenance area would be contacted. The purpose of these initial the site would continue to be protected, developed by adaptively reusing meetings was to provide information only minor additional site work would existing historic buildings. There would about the establishment of Minidoka be anticipated. The ‘‘no-action’’ be minimal new development. Internment National Monument as a alternative is the baseline for evaluating Alternative C is also the new unit of the National Park System and comparing the changes and impacts ‘‘environmentally preferred’’ alternative. and to help characterize the scale and of the three ‘‘action’’ alternatives. The proposed plan would require extent of the conservation planning Alternative B emphasizes the congressional legislation to authorize a process. development and extensive use of boundary adjustment to include areas The NPS encouraged public outreach and partnerships to assist NPS where barracks historically stood in involvement during three phases of the staff in telling the Minidoka story to the order to reestablish a complete EIS process. The initial scoping phase American people. Off-site visitor residential block in an original historic was intended to elicit issues, concerns, education and interpretation would be location. Additionally, the NPS would and suggestions deemed necessary to conducted through diverse request congressional legislation to address during the overall planning. comprehensive programs developed in transfer the historic Minidoka Nine public workshops were held in cooperation with partners, including Relocation Center landfill, located 1 Idaho, Washington, and Oregon in school districts, museums, and mile north of the national monument, November 2002 (250 people provided educational and legacy organizations from the BLM to the NPS. Alternative C comments in workshops, and another and institutions. Alternative B would recommends a name change to 225 people provided written focus on identifying off-site facilities for Minidoka National Historic Site, to be comments). In the second phase the education and interpretation with more reflective of its historic value. NPS engaged the public in developing minimal new development at the Alternative D identifies several preliminary alternatives; these national monument site. Historic actions that would focus on education alternatives were intended to address structures would be adaptively reused and interpretation on-site, specifically the specific issues and concerns that for visitor and monument functions and through the development of new visitor surfaced during the public scoping. for minimal administrative and facilities. The east end site would be Eleven public workshops were held in operational needs. Key historic features used to develop new facilities and to Idaho, Washington, and Oregon in July would be delineated, restored, or provide space for a new visitor center, and August 2003 (215 people provided rehabilitated. On-site education and education and research functions, along comments in the workshops, and interpretation would be accomplished with a new Issei memorial and garden. another 50 people provided written through a range of self-exploratory On-site education and interpretation comments). The third phase of visitor experiences. would be accomplished through a wide involvement afforded the opportunity Alternative C, the NPS’s proposed range of visitor experiences, including for public review of the Draft EIS/GMP, action, emphasizes on-site education interaction with a variety of educational which was released on June 21, 2005. and interpretation and the extensive and interpretive media, participation in Government entities and the public treatment and use of cultural resources creative and self-guided activities, and were invited to submit comments by in telling the Minidoka story. On-site limited access of the historic scene. regular mail, e-mail, fax, and online. In education and interpretation would be Visitor education programs, adaptive addition, the NPS held ten public accomplished through a wide range of reuse of historic structures for park use, meetings in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, visitor experiences, including and the establishment of formal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41236 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

partnerships for education and outreach representatives of or officials of environment and environmental purposes would complement the new organizations or businesses, available consequences of the project. The construction. Alternative D would focus for public inspection in their entirety. proposed action and the no action on sound cultural resource management Decision Process: Following release of alternative will be evaluated in the through preservation, restoration, the Abbreviated Final GMP/EIS, a supplement to the FEIS. rehabilitation, and reconstruction of Record of Decision will be prepared and ADDRESSES: Bureau of Reclamation, certain historic features. Several actions approved not sooner than 30 days after Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 1150 would provide for the protection and the EPA has published its notice of N. Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, ID enhancement of natural and scenic filing of the document in the Federal 83706–1234. resources. Other actions would establish Register. A notice of the approved GMP FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: administrative and operational would be similarly published. As a Anyone interested in more information capabilities in terms of facilities and delegated EIS, the official responsible concerning the EIS, or who has staffing. Most national monument staff for the final decision is the Regional information that may be useful in activities would be on-site to manage Director, Pacific West Region, National identifying significant environmental resources and provide for visitor Park Service. Subsequently, the official issues, may contact Mr. Robert Hamilton understanding and appreciation of the responsible for implementing the at telephone 208–378–5087, or by e-mail national monument. However, some off- approved GMP would be the at [email protected]. TTY users site educational programs would Superintendent, Minidoka Internment may dial 711 to obtain a toll free TTY complement the on-site programs National Monument. replay. through partnerships. Dated: July 12, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Copies: The Abbreviated Final EIS/ Jonathan B. Jarvis, project consists of a 186 foot high dam GMP is now available. This document’s Regional Director, Pacific West Region. and 24,143 acre foot reservoir on Elk abbreviated format requires that the [FR Doc. E6–11520 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Creek, a tributary of the Umpqua River, material presented therein be integrated BILLING CODE 4312–DC–P which would provide regulated flows of with the Draft EIS to fully describe the water for irrigation of up to 4,661 acres proposed GMP, potential environmental of arable land, storage and distribution impacts, and public comments that have DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR of water to the cities of Drain and been received and evaluated. Interested Yoncalla, and the community of Rice persons and organizations wishing to Bureau of Reclamation Hill; allow municipal expansion and express any concerns or provide industrial diversification; provide a Milltown Hill Project, Douglas County, relevant information may obtain the reliable source of water for rural OR Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP by domestic use; provide opportunities to contacting the Superintendent, AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, improve fish and wildlife habitat; Minidoka Internment National Interior. improve water quality; provide new Monument, P.O. Box 570, Hagerman, ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare a water-related recreational facilities; and Idaho 83332–0570, or via telephone at Supplement to the Final Environmental provide limited flood control in and (208) 837–4793 (copies of the Draft EIS Impact Statement. near the city of Drain. A portion of the are also available, if needed). This stored water would be released directly document may also be reviewed at area SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) into Elk Creek to enhance water quality libraries, or obtained electronically via of the National Environmental Policy and anadromous fish habitat, and to the following Web site at: http:// Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the meet the out of stream needs of parkplanning.nps.gov/miin. Please note Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) municipal, industrial and agricultural that names and addresses of all proposes to prepare a supplement to the users. The remainder of the stored water respondents will become part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement would be released into a pipeline public record. It is our practice to make (FEIS) for the Milltown Hill Project. distribution system which would comments, including names, home Reclamation filed the FEIS for the improve municipal, industrial and addresses, home phone numbers, and project with the Environmental irrigation water supplies to Scotts email addresses of respondents, Protection Agency on August 14, 1992 Valley and Yoncalla Valley, and provide available for public review. Individual and completed a Record of Decision an additional water supply for rural respondents may request that we (ROD) on November 7, 1992. The FEIS domestic use in these areas. withhold their names and/or home was prepared in conjunction with As indicated above, a FEIS and ROD addresses, etc., but if you wish us to Douglas County’s (County) application for the project were completed in 1992. consider withholding this information for a Small Reclamation Projects Act The County’s loan application was you must state this prominently at the loan and grants to develop a dam and subsequently approved by the beginning of your comments. In reservoir at the Milltown Hill site on Elk Commissioner of Reclamation and the addition, you must present a rationale Creek above Drain, Oregon. The Secretary of the Interior on May 17, for withholding this information. This County’s loan and grant application was 1994, and May 18, 1994, respectively. rationale must demonstrate that subsequently approved but the project On September 9, 1996, the Umpqua disclosure would constitute a clearly was never constructed. The County has River (UR) cutthroat trout was listed as unwarranted invasion of privacy. recently indicated that it wishes to re- endangered. On October 23, 1996, Unsupported assertions will not meet activate its Small Reclamation Projects Reclamation and the County submitted this burden. In the absence of Act loan and grant application. a biological assessment (BA) to the exceptional, documentable Reclamation believes that due to the National Marine Fisheries Service circumstances, this information will be time lapse since the FEIS was (NMFS) analyzing the effects of the released. We will always make completed and the ROD was signed, it proposed project on the listed and submissions from organizations or is appropriate to update the information proposed species. On December 18, businesses, and from individuals in the 1992 EIS to determine if it still 1997, NMFS issued its biological identifying themselves as correctly describes the affected opinion under section 7 of the ESA,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41237

stating that the proposed project is and/or address, you must state this Copies of the Complaint, proposed likely to jeopardize the continued prominently at the beginning of your Final Judgment, Hold Separate existence of UR cutthroat trout and comment. We will make all submissions Stipulation and Order, and Competitive result in adverse modification of from organizations or businesses, and Impact Statement are available for proposed critical habitat. A reasonable from individuals identifying themselves inspection at the United States and prudent alternative was identified as representatives or officials of Department of Justice, Antitrust by NMFS to minimize the take of UR organizations or businesses, available Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., cutthroat trout. for public disclosure in their entirety. Room 215, Washington, DC 20530, Because of the listing of the UR Dated: July 14, 2006. (telephone: 202–514–2481), and at the cutthroat trout Reclamation determined Clerk’s Office of the United States J. William McDonald, that a supplement to the EIS was District Court for the District of necessary. A Notice of Intent to prepare Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region. Columbia, Washington, DC. Copies of a supplement to the EIS was published [FR Doc. 06–6368 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] these materials may be obtained upon in the Federal Register (62 FR 67890, BILLING CODE 4310–MN–M request and payment of a copying fee. December 30, 1997). A subsequent Public comment is invited within the notice cancelled the Supplement (63 FR statutory 60-day comment period. Such 52286, September 30, 1998) when the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE comments and responses thereto will be County suspended its plans to develop published in the Federal Register and the project because, at that time, there Antitrust Division filed with the Court. Comments should was no process for obtaining a fish be directed to Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, passage waiver from the State of Oregon. United States v. Inco Limited and Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, Following a scientific review of the Falconbridge Limited—Proposed Final U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H coastal cutthroat populations in Judgment and Competitive Impact Street, NW., Suite 3000, Washington, California, Washington and Oregon, the Statement DC 20530, (telephone: 202–307–0924). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule in the Federal Notice is hereby given pursuant to the J. Robert Kramer II, Register (65 FR 24420, April 26, 2000) Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, Director of Operations. delisting the UR cutthroat trout. The 15 U.S.C. 16(b) through (h), that a Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, United States District Court for the Umpqua River Ecologically Significant District of Columbia Unit (ESU) of the coastal cutthroat trout Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, was removed from the List of and Competitive Impact Statement have United States of America Department of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife been filed with the United States Justice, Antitrust Division, 1401 H because of a determination that the District Court for the District of Street, NW., Suite 3000, Washington, DC population, formerly identified as an Columbia in United States v. Inco 20530, Plaintiff v. INCO Limited, 145 ESU of the species, is part of a larger Limited and Falconbridge Limited, Civil King Street West, Suite 1500, Toronto, population segment that previously was Action No. 1:06CV01151. On June 23, ON, Canada M5H 4B7, and determined to be neither endangered 2006, the United States filed a Falconbridge Limited, 207 Queens Quay nor threatened as defined by the Complaint which sought to enjoin Inco West Suite 800 Toronto, ON, Canada Endangered Species Act. Critical Habitat Limited (‘‘Inco’’) from acquiring M5J lA7, Defendants. designations for this population were Falconbridge Limited (‘‘Falconbridge’’). Case Number: 1:06CV01151, Judge: also removed. The Complaint alleged that Inco’s Rosemary M. Collyer, Deck Type: A scoping letter to request assistance acquisition of Falconbridge would Antitrust, Date Stamp: 06/23/2006. in identifying any new information or substantially lessen competition in the effects that should be considered in he development, manufacture, and sale of Complaint supplemental EIS will be prepared early High-Purity Nickel in violation of Plaintiff United States of America this summer and sent to a list of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as (‘‘United States’’), acting under the previously interested parties. Please amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, throughout the direction of the Attorney General of the contact Robert Hamilton at the address United States. The proposed Final United States, brings this civil antitrust given in the ADDRESSES section of this Judgment, filed June 26, 2006, requires action to obtain equitable relief against notice, or via e-mail at defendants to divest Falconbridge’s defendants, Inco Limited (‘‘Inco’’) and [email protected] if you wish to Nikkelverk Refinery located in Falconbridge Limited (‘‘Falconbridge’’). receive a copy of the scoping letter. No Kristiansand, Norway, and certain Plaintiff complains and alleges as scoping meetings are planned at this marketing offices and related assets, to follows: time. preserve competition in the sale of Reclamation welcomes written High-Purity Nickel. A Hold Separate I. Introduction comments related to the environmental Stipulation and Order, entered by the 1. The United States brings this action for effects of the proposed project. Court on June 28, 2006, requires injunctive relief under Section 15 of the Reclamation’s practice is to make defendants to maintain, prior to Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain Inco and Falconbridge comments, including names and home divestiture, the competitive from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, addresses of respondents, available for independence and economic viability of 15 U.S.C. 18. The United States seeks to public review. Individual respondents the assets subject to divestiture under prevent the proposed acquisition of may request that we withhold their the proposed Final Judgment. A Falconbridge by Inco because that acquisition home address from public disclosure, Competitive Impact Statement filed by would substantially lessen competition in the which we will honor to the extent the United States describes the development, manufacture, and sale of allowable by law. There may be other Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, refined nickel of sufficient purity and chemical composition that it can be utilized circumstances in which we would Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, in super alloys used for safety-critical withhold a respondent’s identity from and the remedies available to private applications (hereinafter ‘‘High-Purity public disclosure, as allowable by law. litigants who may have been injured by Nickel’’). The use of High-Purity Nickel is If you wish us to withhold your name the alleged violations. particularly important in making such

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41238 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

products as the rotating parts of jet engines, Falconbridge reported total sales of 19. At the other end of the spectrum are which are often called ‘‘safety-critial parts.’’ approximately $7.7 billion. so-called super alloys. Super alloys generally 2. Inco and Falconbridge are two of the 11. Falconbridge’s primary nickel mining contain between 50 and 70 percent nickel, as world’s leading producers of refined nickel, and processing facilities are located in well as specific amounts of other elements, a metallic element that is valued for its Ontario, Canada, although it also has such including iron, cobalt, and chromium, that resistance to corrosion, stress, and high facilities worldwide. Falconbridge’s only combine to give the alloy specific temperatures. Inco and Falconbridge are also High-Purity Nickel refining operation is performance characteristics. Super alloys are by far the world’s two largest producers of located in Kristiansand, Norway. primarily used in chemical processing plants, High-Purity Nickel. Falconbridge’s High-Purity Nickel is shipped medical applications, industrial power 3. High-Purity Nickel is primarily to customers worldwide, including the generation, and various aerospace distinguished from other refined nickel United States. applications. because it contains lower amounts of certain III. Jurisdiction and Venue 20. Certain products made from super impurities commonly referred to as trace alloys, such as the rotating parts of jet elements. In safety-critical parts, for example, 12. Plaintiff United States brings this engines, are considered safety-critical parts. the presence of trace elements can make the action against defendants Inco and For these parts, it is vital that, in addition to parts less resistant to the extreme stresses Falconbridge under Section 15 of the Clayton containing the proper amount of nickel, the and temperatures under which they operate Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent super alloy be as free as possible from certain and may eventually lead to engine failure. and restrain the violation by defendants of trace elements that could compromise the 4. Inco’s proposed acquisition of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. performance of the product and result in Falconbridge would reduce the number of 13. Defendants produce and sell High- serious problems, like engine failure. For significant worldwide High-Purity Nickel Purity Nickel in the flow of interstate example, designers of jet engines severely suppliers from three to two and create a commerce. Their activities in developing, restrict the maximum amounts of trace company with over 80 percent of the world’s producing, and selling High-Purity Nickel elements that can be contained in superalloys sales of High-Purity Nickel. substantially affect interstate commerce. This used to produce moving parts for jet engines. 5. Unless the proposed acquisition is Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 21. The nickel that meets demanding enjoined, competition in High-Purity Nickel action pursuant to Section 12 of the Clayton safety-critical requirements is High-Purity that has benefitted customers will be Act, 15 U.S.C. 22; and 28 U.S.C. 1331, Nickel. High-Purity Nickel is refined nickel substantially reduced. The proposed 1337(a), and 1345. of sufficient purity and chemical acquisition would likely result in higher 14. Venue is proper in this District composition that it can be utilized in super prices, lower quality, less innovation, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(d). Inco and alloys used for safety-critical applications. less favorable delivery terms in the High- Falconbridge have consented to venue and Only a small portion of the refined nickel personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. Purity Nickel market. produced in the world has sufficient metal II. The Defendants IV. The Proposed Transaction content and purity to qualify as High-Purity 15. Pursuant to a Support Agreement dated Nickel. 6. Defendant Inco is a Canadian 22. Super alloy makers must use High- corporation with its principal place of October 10, 2005, Inco stated that it intended to offer to purchase all of the common shares Purity Nickel to meet the specifications for business in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Inco’s safety-critical parts. Super alloy makers do High-Purity Nickel sales in the United States of Falconbridge not currently owned by it. Also pursuant to that Support Agreement, not have the in-house capability to remove are made through its wholly-owned sufficient quantities of undesirable trace subsidiary, International Nickel, Inc. (‘‘INI’’). Falconbridge’s Board of Directors stated that it had determined that it is in the best elements from non-High-Purity Nickel to INI is a Delaware corporation with its permit them to produce alloys that meet the principal place of business in Saddlebrook, interests of Falconbridge to support the offer, recommend acceptance of Inco’s offer to specifications for safety-critical parts. New Jersey. holders of the common shares of 23. A small but significant post-acquisition 7. Inco is one of the largest mining Falconbridge, and use its reasonable best increase in the price of High-Purity Nickel companies in the world. Inco mines, efforts to permit Inco’s offer to be successful, would not cause the purchasers of safety- processes, and refines various minerals, on the terms and conditions contained in the critical parts to substitute non-High-Purity including nickel. Inco also produces cobalt Support Agreement. Nickel or elements other than nickel so as to and platinum group metals (‘‘PGMs’’) as by- 16. On October 24, 2005, Inco made a make such a price increase unprofitable. products of its nickel production. In 2005, forinal offer to purchase all of the 24. Accordingly, the development, Inco reported total sales of approximately outstanding common shares of Falconbridge, manufacture, and sale of High-Purity Nickel $4.7 billion. a transaction now valued at over $15 billion is a line of commerce and a relevant product 8. Inco’s main nickel mining, processing, dollars. Inco’s offer to purchase, originally market for purposes of analyzing this and refining operations are located in open for acceptance until December 23, 2005, acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Canada, although it owns mines and has been extended until June 30, 2006. Act. processing facilities worldwide. Inco’s High- Purity Nickel refining operations are located V. Reduced Competition in the High-Purity B. The Relevant Geographic Market in Ontario, Canada, and Wales, United Nickel Market 25. All of the High-Purity Nickel sold in Kingdom. Inco’s High-Purity Nickel is the world is mined, processed, and refined A. The Relevant Product Market shipped to customers worldwide, including outside of the United States. Both Inco and the United States. 17. Nickel is a metallic element that is Falconbridge sell High-Purity Nickel 9. Defendant Falconbridge is a Canadian particularly resistant to high temperatures, throughout the world. Both companies corporation with its principal place of high stresses, and corrosion. Nickel is often import High-Purity Nickel into the United business in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. combined with other materials to form alloys States and sell that nickel to customers Falconbridge’s High-Purity Nickel sales in with particular performance characteristics. located throughout the United States. the United States are made through its These performance characteristics depend on 26. Accordingly, the world is the relevant wholly-owned subsidiary, Falconbridge U.S., the amount of nickel and other elements geographic market within the meaning of Inc. (‘‘FUS’’). FUS is a Pennsylvania contained in the particular alloy. Section 7 of the Clayton Act. corporation with its principal place of 18. As a general proposition, as the amount business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. of nickel in the alloy increases, the more C. Concentration 10. Like Inco, Falconbridge is one of the resistant the alloy is to heat and stress. The 27. The market for High-Purity Nickel is world’s largest mining companies. most common alloy using nickel is stainless highly concentrated. Inco and Falconbridge Falconbridge mines, processes, and refines steel, which contains, on average, are by far the two largest producers of High- various minerals, including nickel and approximately 10 percent nickel and is used Purity Nickel sold worldwide and in the copper. Falconbridge also produces cobalt in applications demanding the least amount United States. and PGMs as by-products of both its nickel of the resistence to heat and stress that nickel 28. Aside from Inco and Falconbridge, only and copper production. In 2005, provides. three companies have demonstrated any

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41239

ability to produce High-Purity Nickel. One of critical applications a higher price than defeat an anticompetitive price increase in these companies consistently produces High- customers that are purchasing High-Purity the event that Inco acquires Falconbridge. Purity Nickel, but its available capacity is Nickel for other uses. Without the substantially less than that of either Inco or competitive constraint of head-to-head VI. The Proposed Acquisition Violates Falconbridge and it cannot economically competition between Inco and Falconbridge, Section 7 of the Clayton Act increase its capacity. The other two Inco post-merger will have a greater ability to 43. The proposed acquisition of companies are not substantial competitors in exercise market-power by raising prices to Falconbridge by Inco would substantially the High-Purity Nickel market. While both companies that purchase High-Purity Nickel lessen competition and tend to create a have substantial capacity to make non-High- for super alloys used for safety-critical monopoly in interstate trade and commerce Purity Nickel and both have produced small applications. in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, amounts of High-Purity Nickel, their ability 36. The other High-Purity Nickel producers 15 U.S.C. 18. to make High-Purity Nickel, and to make it do not have the incentive or the ability, 44. Unless restrained, the transaction will on a consistent basis, is very limited. individually or collectively, to effectively have the following anticompetitive effects, 29. Inco accounts for at least 40 percent of constrain a unilateral exercise of market among others: the worldwide sales of High-Purity Nickel. power by Inco after the acquisition. a. Actual and potential competition in the Similarly, Falconbridge accounts for at least 37. The transaction will therefore world market, including the United States, 40 percent of the worldwide sales of High- substantially lessen competition in the between Inco and Falconbridge in the Purity Nickel. market for High-Purity Nickel, which is development, manufacture, and sale of High- 30. The market for High-Purity Nickel likely to lead to higher prices, lower quality, Purity Nickel will be eliminated; would become substantially more less innovation, and less favorable delivery b. Competition generally in the concentrated if Inco acquires Falconbridge. terms for the ultimate consumers of such development, manufacture, and sale of High- Combined, Inco and Falconbridge would products, in violation of Section 7 of the Purity Nickel will be substantially lessened; account for over 80 percent of worldwide Clayton Act. and High-Purity Nickel sales. Using a measure of 2. Entry Is Not Likely To Deter the Exercise c. Prices for High-Purity Nickel will likely market concentration called the Herfindahl- of Market Power increase, the quality of High-Purity Nickel Hirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’) (defined and will likely decline, innovation relating to explained in Appendix A), the proposed 38. Successful entry or expansion into the development, manufacture, and sale of High- High-Purity Nickel will likely decline, and transaction will increase the HHI in the the delivery terms currently offered in the market for High-Purity Nickel by Purity Nickel is difficult, time-consuming, and costly. Companies not currently High-Purity Nickel market will likely become approximately 3,200 points to a post- less favorable to the customer. acquisition level of approximately 6,800, producing nickel of any kind would require well in excess of levels that raise significant roughly three to five years and the VII. Request for Relief expenditure of at least $100 million to build antitrust concerns. 45. Plaintiff requests that: a refinery to produce a finished nickel a. Inco’s proposed acquisition of D. Anticompetitive Effects product. In addition to building the refinery, Falconbridge be adjudged and decreed to be 1. The Proposed Transaction Will Harm the new entrant, if not vertically integrated, would also have to secure nickel feedstock to unlawful and in violation of Section 7 of the Competition in the Market for High-Purity Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18; Nickel. refine. 39. The cost of entering the High-Purity b. Defendants and all persons acting on 31. High-Purity Nickel customers generally Nickel market is even greater than the cost their behalf be permanently enjoined and view Inco’s and Falconbridge’s High-Purity of entering the refined nickel market restrained from consummating the proposed Nickel as their only available options and do generally. A new entrant into the High-Purity acquisition or from entering into or carrying not view the products of other producers as Nickel market would have to invest in out any contract, agreement, plan, or viable alternatives for High-Purity Nickel due additional equipment and processes to understanding, the effect of which would be to concerns relating to the other producers’ enable it to extract sufficient undesirable to combine Inco with the operations of quality, capacity, and reliability. trace elements to produce the nickel required Falconbridge; 32. The vigorous and aggressive by makers of super alloys used for safety- c. Plaintiff be awarded its costs for this competition between Inco and Falconbridge critical applications. Further, if not vertically action; and in the production and sale of High-Purity integrated, a new entrant would have to d. Plaintiff receive such other and further Nickel has benefitted customers. Inco and secure nickel feedstock of sufficient quality relief as the Court deems just and proper. Falconbridge have competed directly in to be able to refine High-Purity Nickel. Dated: June 23, 2006. terms of price, quality, innovation, and 40. Even companies that currently produce Respectfully submitted. delivery terms. non-High-Purity Nickel would require an For Plaintiff United States of America: 33. The proposed acquisition will investment of millions of dollars and several eliminate the competition between Inco and years to modify their facilities and processes Thomas O. Barnett, Falconbridge, reduce the number of to be capable of producing High-Purity Assistant Attorney General, D.C. Bar significant suppliers of High-Purity Nickel Nickel. These companies would not invest #426840. from three to two, and substantially increase the substantial time and money necessary to David L. Meyer, the likelihood that Inco will unilaterally modify their facilities and processes to Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for Civil increase the price of High-Purity Nickel to a produce High-Purity Nickel in response to a Enforcement, D.C. Bar #414420. significant number of customers. small but significant increase in the price of J. Robert Kramer II, 34. Inco and Falconbridge have the ability High-Purity Nickel. to increase prices to certain customers of Director of Operations and Civil 41. Moreover, it is not sufficient simply to Enforcement. High-Purity Nickel. Some customers must be able to produce High-Purity Nickel. A new purchase High-Purity Nickel because they entrant in the High-Purity Nickel market Maribeth Petrizzi, use it in super alloys used for safety-critical would have to be able to produce High-Purity Chief, Litigation II Section, D.C. Bar #435204. applications. These customers do not have Nickel in sufficient quantities with Karen Y. Phillips-Savoy, the ability to substitute any other product for sufficiently consistent purity levels that Dando B. Cellini, High-Purity Nickel. Inco and Falconbridge customers could depend on it to provide the Jillian E. Charles (D.C. Bar #459052), are able to determine their High-Purity amounts of High-Purity Nickel needed at the James K. Foster, Jr., Nickel customers’ end-uses and identify appropriate time. Achieving such capability Christine A. Hill (D.C. Bar #461048/inactive), which customers are purchasing High-Purity could require a substantial investment in Tara M. Shinnick, Nickel specifically for super alloys used for time and money by a company seeking to Robert W. Wilder, safety-critical applications. enter the High-Purity Nickel market. Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, 35. Inco and Falconbridge can, therefore, 42. Therefore, entry or expansion by any Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section, 1401 charge customers that are purchasing High- other firm into the High-Purity Nickel market H Street. NW., Suite 3000, Washington, DC Purity Nickel for super alloys used for safety- would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to 20530, Tel: (202) 307–0924.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41240 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Appendix A—Herfindahl-Hirschman Index which relief may be granted against devices, safety procedures for the handling of Calculations defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton materials and substances, quality assurance ‘‘HHI’’ means the Herfindahl-Hirschman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18. and control procedures, design tools and simulation capability, and all manuals and Index, a commonly accepted measure of II. Definitions market concentration. It is calculated by technical information provided to the As used in this Final Judgment: squaring the market share of each firm employees, customers, suppliers, agents or A. ‘‘Acquirer’’ means LionOre, the entity to competing in the market and then summing licensees of the Alternative Divested whom defendants shall divest the Divested the resulting numbers. For example, for a Business, provided that with respect to any Business. market consisting of four firms with shares of such intangible assets relating to metal B. ‘‘Acquirer Shares’’ means the issuance separation or purification processes, at the thirty, thirty, twenty, and twenty percent, the to Falconbridge of no more than 19.99 option of the Alternative Acquirer defendants HHI is 2600 (302 + 302 + 202 + 202 = 2600). percent or 49,118,057 of the outstanding may retain a non-exclusive, non-transferable, The HHI takes into a ccount the relative size fully paid-up license(s) to or copy of such and distribution of the firms in a market and common shares of the Acquirer at the intangible assets; approaches zero when a market consists of a completion of the purchase and sale of the 3. A non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully large number of firms of relatively equal size. Divested Business to the Acquirer. paid-up license(s) for the use of the name The HHI increases both as the number of C. ‘‘Acquisition of Falconbridge’’ means: ‘‘Falconbridge,’’ the duration and terms of firms in the market decreases and as the (a) the condition that Inco has taken up and which shall be negotiated by the defendants disparity in size between those firms paid for such number of Falconbridge common shares, validly deposited and not and the Alternative Acquirer and limited to increases. the field of use of the Nikkelverk Refinery Markets in which the HHI is between 1000 withdrawn at the expiry time of Inco’s Offer to Purchase all of the Outstanding Shares of Products, provided that any such license(s) and 1800 points are considered to be may be transferable to any future purchaser moderately concentrated and those in which Falconbridge, dated October 24,2005, as amended, that, together with any of the Nikkelverk Refinery; the HHI is in excess of 1800 points are 4. A non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully considered to be highly concentrated. Falconbridge common shares directly or indirectly owned by Inco, constitutes at least paid-up license(s) for use of any intangible Transactions that increase the HHI by more asset that has been used by both the than 100 points in highly concentrated 50.01% of the Falconbridge common shares on a fully-diluted basis at the expiry time or Alternative Divested Business and any of markets presumptively raise antitrust Falconbridge’s non-divested businesses, concerns under the Horizontal Merger (b) Inco’s acquisition of control of Falconbridge by any other means. provided that such license(s) may be Guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of transferable to any future purchaser of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. D. ‘‘Alternative Acquirer’’ means an Acquirer other than LionOre that is in the Nikkelverk Refinery; and See Horizontal Merger Guidelines § 1.51. 5. All research data concerning historic metals mining or processing business and is and current research and development efforts Final Judgment able to supply, on a long-term basis, conducted at or for the Alternative Divested sufficient Feedstock to assure the United Whereas, plaintiff, United States of Business, including designs of experiments, States, in its sole discretion, that the America, filed its Complaint on June 23, and the results of unsuccessful designs and Nikkelverk Refinery will remain an 2006, and plaintiff and defendants, Inco experiments. Limited and Falconbridge Limited, by their economically viable competitive business. The term ‘‘Alternative Divested Business’’ respective attorneys, have consented to the E. ‘‘Alternative Divested Business’’ means shall not include tangible or intangible assets entry of this Final Judgment without trial or Falconbridge Nikkelverk AlS, Falconbridge, exclusively used in, or personnel exclusively adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and U.S., Inc. (‘‘FUS’’), Falconbridge Europe S.A. responsible for, the production or sale of without this Final Judgment constituting any (‘‘FESA’’), and Falconbridge (Japan) Limited products other than the Nikkelverk Refinery evidence against or admission by any party (‘‘FJKK’’), including: Products. regarding any issue of fact or law; 1. All tangible assets used in the F. ‘‘Alternative Supply Agreement’’ means And Whereas, defendants agree to be development, production, servicing, and sale an agreement between Inco and the bound by the provisions of this Final of the Nikkelverk Refinery Products, Alternative Acquirer on the terms described Judgment pending its approval by the Court; including but not limited to the Nikkelverk in Section V(B) by which Inco commits to And Whereas, the essence of this Final Refinery; all real property; any facilities used supply to the Alternative Acquirer, other Judgment is the prompt and certain for research, development, and engineering than through a New Third-Party Supply divestiture of certain rights or assets by the support, and any real property associated Agreement, Feedstock to be used in operating defendants to assure that competition is not with those facilities; manufacturing and sales the Nikkelverk Refinery. substantially lessened; assets, including capital equipment, vehicles, G. ‘‘Divested Business’’ means And Whereas, plaintiff requires defendants supplies, personal property, inventory, office Falconbridge Nikkelverk A/S, Falconbridge, to make certain divestitures and enter into furniture, fixed assets and fixtures, materials, U.S., Inc. (‘‘FUS’’), Falconbridge Europe S.A. the Supply Agreement and provide any on- or off-site warehouses or storage (‘‘FESA’’), Falconbridge (Japan) Limited Alternative Acquirer the Third-Party facilities, and other tangible property or (‘‘FJKK’’), and Falconbridge International Feedstock Option for the purpose of improvements; all licenses, permits and Limited (‘‘FIL’’), including: remedying the loss of competition alleged in authorizations issued by any governmental 1. All tangible assets used in the the Complaint; organization; all contracts, agreements, development, production, servicing, and sale And Whereas, defendants have represented leases, commitments, and understandings; all of the Nikkelverk Refinery Products, to the United States that the divestitures, the customer contracts, lists, accounts, and credit including but not limited to the Nikkelverk Supply Agreement, and the Third-Party records; and other records relating to the Refinery; all real property; any facilities used Feedstock Option required below can and Alternative Divested Business; for research development, and engineering will be made and that defendants will later 2. All intangible assets that have been used support, and any real property associated raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as exclusively or primarily in the development, with those facilities; manufacturing and sales grounds for asking the Court to modify any production, servicing, and sale of the assets, including capital equipment, vehicles, of the divestiture provisions contained Nikkelverk Refinery Products, including but supplies, personal property, inventory, office below; not limited to all patents, licenses and furniture, fixed assets and fixtures, materials, Now Therefore, before any testimony is sublicenses, intellectual property, on- or off-site warehouses or storage taken, without trial or adjudication of any trademarks, trade names, service marks, facilities, and other tangible property or issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the service names (including the product or trade improvements; all licenses, permits and parties, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed: name ‘‘SuperElectro’’ or any variation authorizations issued by any governmental thereof), technical information, computer organization; all contracts, agreements, I. Jurisdiction software and related documentation, know- leases, commitments, and understandings; all This Court has jurisdiction over the subject how, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, customers contracts, lists, accounts, and matter of and each of the parties to this designs, design protocols, specifications for credit records; and other records relating to action. The Complaint states a claim upon materials, specifications for parts and the Divested Business;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41241

2. All intangible assets that have been used constituting refinery feed sources suitable for Purchase All of the Outstanding Shares of exclusively or primarily in the development, refining at Nikkelverk Refinery. Falconbridge Limited dated October 24, production, servicing, and sale of the L. ‘‘Foreign Competition Clearance’’ means 2005, as amended, defendants are ordered Nikkelverk Refinery Products, including but an action or inaction by the European and directed concurrently with Inco’s not limited to all patents, licenses and Commission that results in the termination of Acquisition of Falconbridge, (1) to divest the sublicenses, intellectual property, any relevant waiting period, or grant of Divested Business to the Acquirer in a trademarks, trade names, service marks, approval, clearance or consent, that is manner consistent with this Final Judgment, service names (including the product or trade applicable to the acquisition of Falconbridge and (2) to enter into the Supply Agreement name ‘‘SuperElectro’’ or any variation by Inco. with the Acquirer. Defendants shall, as soon thereof), technical information, computer M. ‘‘High-Purity Nickel’’ means refined as possible, but within one business day after software and related documentation, know- nickel of sufficient purity and chemical the Acquisition of Falconbridge, notify the how, trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, composition that it can be utilized in super United States of (1) the effective date of the designs, design protocols, specifications for alloys used for safety-critical applications. Acquisition of Falconbridge and (2) the materials, specifications for parts and N. ‘‘Inco’’ means defendant Inco Limited, effective date that the Divested Business was devices, safety procedures for the handling of a Canadian corporation with its headquarters divested to the Acquirer. materials and substances, quality assurance in Toronto, Canada, its successors and B. Defendants shall provide the United and control procedures, design tools and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, States and the Acquirer information relating simulation capability, and all manuals and groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint to the personnel employed by the Divested technical information provided to the ventures, and their directors, officers, Business or involved exclusively or primarily employees, customers, suppliers, agents or managers, agents, and employees. in research, development, production, licensees of the Divested Business, provided O. ‘‘LionOre’’ means LionOre Mining operation, and sale of the Nikkelverk Refinery Products or procurement of that with respect to any such intangible International Limited, a Canadian Feedstock from third parties for the Divested assets relating to metal separation or corporation with its headquarters in London, Business, to enable the Acquirer to make purification processes, at the option of the England, its successors and assigns, and its offers of employment. Defendants will not Acquirer defendants may retain a non- subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, interfere with any negotiations by the exclusive, non-transferable, fully paid-up partnerships, and joint ventures, and their license(s) to or copy of such intangible assets; Acquirer to employ any of the defendants’ directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees whose responsibilities exclusively 3. A non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully employees. paid-up license(s) for the use of the name or primarily involve the research, P. ‘‘New Third-Party Supply Agreement’’ development, production, operation, or sale ‘‘Falconbridge,’’ the duration and terms of means one or more agreements between the which shall be negotiated by the defendants of the products of the Divested Business or defendants and the Alternative Acquirer on procurement of Feedstock from third parties and the Acquirer and limited to the field of the terms described in Section V for the for the Divested Business. use of the Nikkelverk Refinery Products, supply to the Nikkelverk Refinery of C. Defendants shall permit the Acquirer to provided that any such license(s) may be Feedstock that is produced by persons other have reasonable access to personnel and to transferable to any future purchaser of the than the defendants. make inspections of the physical facilities of Nikkelverk Refinery; Q. ‘‘Nikkelverk Refinery’’ means the nickel, the Divested Business; access to any and all 4. A non-exclusive, non-transferable, fully copper, cobalt, and precious metals refinery environmental, zoning, and other permit paid-up license(s) for use of any intangible owned by Falconbridge’s subsidiary documents and information; access to any asset that has been used by both the Divested Falconbridge Nikkelverk A/S and located In and all financial, operational, or other Business and any of Falconbridge’s non- Kristiansand, Norway. documents and information customarily divested businesses, provided that such R. ‘‘Nikkelverk Refinery Products’’ means provided as part of a due diligence process; license(s) may be transferable to any future the finished nickel, copper, cobalt, precious and any documents and information the purchaser of Nikkelverk Refinery; and metals, and other products produced at the Acquirer shall consider relevant to any issues 5. All research data concerning historic Nikkelverk Refinery. relating to the Supply Agreement. and current research and development efforts S. ‘‘Supply Agreement’’ means an D. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer conducted at or for the Divested Business, agreement between Inco and the Acquirer on that each asset that was operational as of the including designs of experiments, and the the terms described in Section IV by which date of filing of the Complaint in this matter results of unsuccessful designs and Inco commits to supply to the Acquirer, other will be operational on the date of divestiture. experiments. than through a New Third-Party Supply E. Defendants shall enter into the Supply The term ‘‘Divested Business’’ shall not Agreement, Feedstock to be used in operating Agreement with the Acquirer to provide include tangible or intangible assets the Nikkelverk Refinery. Feedstock of the same or substantially the exclusively used in, or personnel exclusively T. ‘‘Third-Party Feedstock Option’’ means same quality and volume provided by responsible for, the production or sale of one or more of the options available to the Falconbridge to be used in operating the products other than the Nikkelverk Refinery Alternative Acquirer in Section V(A)(3) to Nikkelverk Refinery. At the option of the Products. obtain the quantities and quality of Feedstock Acquirer, such Supply Agreement may have H. ‘‘Existing Third-Party Supply supplied pursuant to the Existing Third-Party a term of up to ten (10) years. The terms and Agreements’’ means existing agreements Supply Agreements. conditions of the Supply Agreement must be between Falconbridge and third parties for commercially reasonable and designed to the supply of Feedstock for the Nikkelverk III. Applicability enable the Acquirer to compete effectively in Refinery that is produced by persons other A. This Final Judgment applies to Inco and the sale of High-Purity Nickel. The terms and than the defendants. Falconbridge, as defined above, and all other conditions of the Supply Agreement must be I. ‘‘Falconbridge’’ means defendant persons in active concert or participation approved by the United States in its sole Falconbridge Limited, a Canadian with any of them who receive actual notice discretion. Inco shall give the United States corporation with its headquarters in Toronto, of this Final Judgment by personal service or 30 calendar days notice before exercising any Canada, its successors and assigns, and its otherwise. contract right to cancel or terminate the subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, B. Defendants shall require, as a condition Supply Agreement and before implementing partnerships, and joint ventures, and their of the sale or other disposition of all or any material change to any term related to directors, officers, managers, agents, and substantially all of their assets or of lesser the length of the Supply Agreement, the employees. business units that include the Divested volume and quality of the Feedstock, or the J. ‘‘Falconbridge International Limited’’ Business, that the purchaser agrees to be price. In the performance of the Supply means a corporation organized under the bound by the provisions of this Final Agreement, defendants shall take no action laws of Barbados and a subsidiary of Judgment. the effect of which is to interfere with or Falconbridge responsible, in part, for the impede the ability of the Acquirer to compete acquisition of Feedstock from third parties. IV. Divestiture effectively in the sale of High-Purity Nickel. K. ‘‘Feedstock’’ means nickel-in-matte and A. In the event that Inco acquires any F. Defendants shall not take any action that other products and intermediate compounds shares pursuant to Inco Limited Offer to will impede in any way the permitting,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41242 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

operation. or divestiture of the Divested that the Alternative Acquirer obtains the 3. The Alternative Divested Business will Business. quantities and quality of Feedstock to be remain viable and the divestiture of the G. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer supplied pursuant to the Existing Third-Party Alternative Divested Business will remedy that there are no material defects in the . Supply Agreements consistent with the the competitive harm alleged in the environmental, zoning, or other permits remaining term of each of the Existing Third- Complaint. pertaining to the operation of the Divested Party Supply Agreements. In the event the D. Nothing in this Final Judgment shall be Business, and that following the sale of the European Commission also requires the construed to require the Alternative Acquirer Divested Business, defendants will not divestiture of the same assets, the United as a condition of any license granted by or undertake, directly or indirectly, any States shall consult in good faith with the to defendants pursuant to Sections II (E)(2)– challenges to the environmental, zoning, or European Commission to ensure selection of (4) to extend to defendants the right to use other permits relating to the operation of the a trustee acceptable to both the United States the Alternative Acquirer’s improvements to Divested Business. and the European Commission. processes used in the production of H. Nothing in this Final Judgment shall be B. At the option of the Alternative Nikkelverk Refinery Products. construed to require the Acquirer as a Acquirer, defendants shall enter into the E. With respect to any divestiture to an condition of any license granted by or to Alternative Supply Agreement with the Alternative Acquirer under Section V of this defendants pursuant to Sections II (G)(2)–(4) Alternative Acquirer to provide Feedstock of Final Judgment, defendants shall have the to extend to defendants the right to use the the same or substantially the same quality same obligations to the Alternative Acquirer Acquirer’s improvements to processes used and volume provided by Falconbridge to be with respect to the Alternative Divested in the production of Nikkelverk Refinery used in operating the Nikkelverk Refinery. At Business as they do to the Acquirer with Products. the option of the Alternative Acquirer, such respect to the Divested Business as set forth I. Unless the United States otherwise Alternative Supply Agreement may have a in Sections IV(B), (C), (D), (F), and (G) of the consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant term of up to ten (10) years. The terms and Final Judgment. to Section IV of this Final Judgment shall conditions of the Alternative Supply F. After the appointment of a trustee include the entire Divested Business and the Agreement must be commercially reasonable becomes effective, only the trustee shall have Supply Agreement, and shall be and designed to enable the Alternative the right to sell the Alternative Divested accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the Acquirer to compete effectively in the sale of Business. The trustee shall have the power United States, in its sole discretion, that the High-Purity Nickel. The terms and conditions and authority to accomplish the divestiture Divested Business can and will be used by of the Alternative Supply Agreement must be to an Alternative Acquirer acceptable to the the Acquirer as part of a viable, ongoing approved by the United States in its sole United States at such price and on such business, engaged in producing High-Purity discretion. Inco shall give the United States terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable Nickel for sale worldwide, including the 30 calendar days notice before exercising any effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions United States. The divestiture shall be contract right to cancel or terminate the of Sections V and VI of this Final Judgment, accomplished so as to satisfy the United Alternative Supply Agreement and before and shall have such other powers as this States, in its sole discretion, that: implementing any material change to any Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section 1. the Divested Business will remain viable term related to the length of the Alternative V(H) of this Final Judgment, the trustee may and the divestiture of the Divested business Supply Agreement, the volume and quality of hire at the cost and expense of defendants will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Feedstock, or the price. In the any investment bankers, attorneys, or other the Complaint; and performance of the Alternative Supply agents, who shall be solely accountable to the 2. none of the terms of any agreement Agreement, defendants shall take no action trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee’s between the Acquirer and defendants give the effect of which is to interfere with or judgment to assist in the divestiture. defendants the ability unreasonably to raise impede the ability of the Alternative G. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the Acquirer’s costs, to lower the Acquirer’s Acquirer to compete effectively in the sale of the trustee, or to the Alternative Supply efficiency, or to otherwise interfere in the High-Purity Nickel. Agreement or the Third-Party Feedstock ability of the Acquirer to compete effectively C. Unless the United States otherwise Option ordered by the trustee, on any ground in the production and sale of High-Purity consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant other than the trustee’s malfeasance. Any Nickel. to Section V of this Final Judgment shall such objections by defendants must be include the entire Alternative Divested conveyed in writing to the United States and V. Appointment of Trustee to Effect Business, Alternative Supply Agreement, and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after Divestiture Third-Party Feedstock Option, and shall be the trustee has provided the notice required A. If defendants have not divested the accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the under Section VI. Divested Business as specified in Section United States, in its sole discretion, that the H. The trustee shall serve at the cost and IV(A), defendants shall notify the United Alternative Divested Business can and will expense of defendants, on such terms and States of that fact in writing. Upon be used by the Alternative Acquirer as part conditions as plaintiff approves, and shall application of the United States, the Court of a viable, ongoing business, engaged in account for all monies derived from the sale shall appoint a trustee selected by the United producing High-Purity Nickel for sale of the Alternative Divested Business and all States and approved by the Court (1) to divest worldwide, including the United States. A costs and expenses so incurred. After the Alternative Divested Business in a divestiture pursuant to Section V of this approval by the Court of the trustee’s manner consistent with this Final Judgment Final Judgment, shall be accomplished so as accounting, including fees for its services and to an Alternative Acquirer acceptable to the to satisfy the United States, in its sole those of any professionals and agents United States in its sole discretion, (2) at the discretion, that: retained by the trustee, all remaining money option of the Alternative Acquirer, to 1. The Alternative Acquirer has the intent shall be paid to defendants and the trust shall effectuate the Alternative Supply Agreement and capability (including the necessary then be terminated. The compensation of the between the defendants and the Alternative managerial, operational, technical and trustee and any professionals and agents Acquirer, and (3) except for those Existing financial capability) to compete effectively in retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in Third-Party Supply Agreements under which the production and sale of High-Purity light of the value of the Alternative Divested Feedstocks are contractually obligated to be Nickel; and Business and based on a fee arrangement processed at the Nikkelverk Refinery, to (a) 2. That none of the terms of any agreement providing the trustee with an incentive based effectuate, at the option of the Alternative between the Alternative Acquirer and on the price and terms of the divestiture and Acquirer, the New Third-Party Supply defendants give defendants the ability the speed with which it is accomplished, but Agreement between the defendants and the unreasonably to raise the Alternative timeliness is paramount. Alternative Acquirer, (b) oversee the Acquirer’s costs, to lower the Alternative I. Defendants shall use their best efforts to defendants’ best efforts to procure the Acquirer’s efficiency, or otherwise to assist the trustee in accomplishing the assignment of the Existing Third-Party interfere in the ability of the Alternative required divestiture. The trustee and any Supply Agreements, (c) order the divestiture Acquirer to compete effectively in the consultants, accountants, attorneys, and of Falconbridge International Limited, or (d) production and sale of High-Purity Nickel; other persons retained by the trustee shall some combination of these options, to ensure and have full and complete access to the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41243

personnel, books, records, and facilities of potential Alternative Acquirer. Defendants respect to LionOre that is not otherwise the business to be divested, and defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional publicly available. In no event shall shall develop financial and other information information requested within fifteen (15) defendant influence or attempt to influence relevant to such business as the trustee may calendar days of the receipt of the request, the decision-making, management, or reasonably request, subject to customary unless the parties shall otherwise agree. policies of LionOre; and confidentiality protection for trade secret or C. Within (a) thirty (30) calendar days after 5. Shall not acquire, directly or indirectly, other confidential research, development, or receipt of the notice or (b) twenty (20) any shares of, or other ownership interest in, commercial information. Defendants shall calendar days after the United States has LionOre, within two years of divesting the take no action to interfere with or to impede been provided the additional information Acquirer Shares. the trustee’s accomplishment of the requested from defendants, the proposed VIII. Hold Separate divestiture. Alternative Acquirer, any third party, or the J. After its appointment, the trustee shall trustee, whichever is later, the United States Until the divestiture required by this Final file monthly reports with the United States shall provide written notice to defendants Judgment has been accomplished, defendants and the Court setting forth the trustee’s and the trustee, if there is one, stating shall take all steps necessary to comply with efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered whether or not it objects to the proposed the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order under this Final Judgment. To the extent divestiture. If the United States provides entered by this Court. Defendants shall take such reports contain information that the written. notice that it does not object, the no action that would jeopardize the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall divestiture may be consummated, subject divestiture ordered by this Court. not be filed in the public docket of the Court. only to defendants’ limited right to object to IX. Affidavits Such reports shall include the name, address, the sale under Section V(G) of this Final and telephone number of each person who, Judgment. Absent written notice that the A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the during the preceding month, made an offer United States does not object to the proposed filing of the Complaint in this matter, and to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, Alternative Acquirer or upon objection by the every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter entered into negotiations to acquire, or was United States, a divestiture proposed under until the divestiture has been completed contacted or made an inquiry about Section V shall not be consummated. Upon under Section IV or Section V, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit acquiring, any interest in the Alternative objection by defendants under Section V(G), as to the fact and manner of its compliance Divested Business and shall describe in a divestiture proposed under Section V shall with Section IV or Section V of this Final detail each contact with any such person. not be consummated unless approved by the Judgment. Every twelve (12) months The trustee shall maintain full records of all Court. following completion of the divestiture efforts made to divest the Alternative VII. Financing required by Section IV or Section V, Divested Business. defendants shall deliver to the United States K. If the trustee has not accomplished such To the extent that defendants are issued an affidavit that describes in reasonable divestiture within six months after its Acquirer Shares pursuant to the Agreement detail all actions defendants have taken and appointment, the trustee shall promptly file to Acquire the Divested Business Through Purchase of FNA Group Shares dated June 6, all steps defendants have implemented on an with the Court a report setting forth (1) The ongoing basis to comply with Section IV(E) 2006 between Falconbridge and LionOre, or trustee’s efforts to accomplish the required or Section V(B) of this Final Judgment, otherwise, in exchange for financing part of divestiture; (2) the reasons, in the trustee’s including compliance with the Supply the Acquirer’s acquisition of the Divested judgment, why the required divestiture has Agreement. Defendants shall, in addition, Business, defendants: not been accomplished; and (3) the trustee’s deliver to the United States an affidavit 1. Shall, within 150 days after the earlier recommendations. To the extent such reports describing any changes to the Supply of (a) the Acquisition of Falconbridge, or (b) contain information that the trustee deems Agreement outlined in defendants’ earlier the issuance of the Acquirer Shares, divest in confidential, such reports shall not be filed affidavits filed pursuant to this section a manner consistent with this Final Judgment in the public docket of the Court. The trustee within fifteen (15) calendar days after the all of the Acquirer Shares; shall at the same time furnish such report to change is implemented. the plaintiff who shall have the right to make 2. Shall divest the Acquirer Shares by open B. Defendants shall keep all records of all additional recommendations consistent with market sale, public offering, private sale, efforts made to preserve the Divested the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter repurchase by LionOre, or a combination Business and to divest the Divested Business shall enter such orders as it shaIl deem thereof. The divestiture of the Acquirer until one year after such divestiture has been appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Shares shall not be made: (i) To any person completed. Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, other than LionOre who provides High-Purity C. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the include extending the trust and the term of Nickel unless the United States shall filing of the Complaint in this matter, and the trustee’s appointment by a period otherwise agree in writing; or (ii) in a manner every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter requested by the United States. that, in the sole judgment of the United until the divestiture of the Acquirer Shares States, could significantly impair LionOre as VI. Notice of Proposed Divestiture has been completed under Section VII of the an effective competitor in the production and Final Judgment, defendants shall deliver to A. Within two (2) business days following sale of High-Purity Nickel; the United States an affidavit that describes execution of a definitive divestiture 3. Shall not be issued more than the in reasonable detail all actions defendants agreement, the trustee shall notify the United Acquirer Shares; have taken and all steps defendants have States and the defendants of any proposed 4. Shall not exercise any rights relating to implemented on an ongoing basis to comply divestiture required by Section V of this the Acquirer Shares, including but not with Section VII of this Final Judgment. Final Judgment. The notice shall set forth the limited to (i) exercising or permitting the details of the proposed divestiture and list exercise of any voting rights, (ii) electing, X. Compliance Inspection the name, address, and telephone number of nominating, appointing, or otherwise A. For purposes of determining or securing each person not previously identified who designating or participating as officer or compliance with this Final Judgment, or of offered or expressed an interest in or desire directors; (iii) participating. as a member of determining whether the Final Judgment to acquire any ownership interest in the the Board of Directors or otherwise, in any should be modified or vacated, and subject Alternative Divested Business, together with meeting of the Board of Directors, (iv) to any legally recognized privilege, from time full details of the same. participating in any committees or other to time duly authorized representatives of the B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of governing body of LionOre; (v) exercising any United States Department of Justice, receipt by the United States of such notice, veto rights with respect to the business of including consultants and other persons the United States may request from LionOre, including veto power over changes retained by the United States, shall, upon defendants, the proposed Alternative in control of LionOre, over significant asset written request of a duly authorized Acquirer, any other third party, or the trustee purchases or sales, over change in majority representative of the Assistant Attorney if applicable, additional information of board membership, or over changes in General in charge of the Antitrust Division, concerning the proposed divestiture, the majority ownership of LionOre; (vi) obtaining and on reasonable notice to defendants, be proposed Alternative Acquirer, and any other any financial or business information with permitted:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41244 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

1. Access during defendants’ office hours responses to comments. Based upon the until the acquisition is consummated, the to inspect and copy, or at plaintiffs option, record before the Court, which includes the Nikkelverk Refinery and other divestiture to require defendants to provide copies of, all Competitive Impact Statement and any assets (hereafter ‘‘Divested Business’’) as an books, ledgers, accounts, records and comments and response to comments filed ongoing, economically viable competitive documents in the possession, custody, or with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment business. The Hold Separate Stipulation and control of defendants, relating to any matters is in the public interest. Order further requires that, upon Inco’s contained in this Final Judgment; and Date: llllllllllllllllll acquisition of the first share of Falconbridge 2. To interview, either informally or on the Court approval subject to procedures of the common stock, the defendants will ensure record, defendants’ officers, employees, or Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 that the Divested Business operates as an agents, who may have their individual U.S.C. 16. independent, economically viable ongoing counsel present, regarding such matters. The competitive business, held separate and apart interviews shall be subject to the reasonable lllllllllllllllllllll from Inco, and that it will remain convenience of the interviewee and without United States District Judge independent and uninfluenced by Inco. restraint or interference by defendants. Competitive Impact Statement The proposed Final Judgment also B. Upon the written request of a duly provides that, if for any reason the divestiture authorized representative of the Assistant Plaintiff United States of America (‘‘United to LionOre does not occur as required by the Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust States’’), pursuant to Section 2(b) of the proposed Final Judgment, a trustee will be Division, defendants shall submit written Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act appointed to divest the assets to an reports, under oath if requested, relating to (‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)– Alternative Acquirer, which is defined as a any of the matters contained in this Final (h), files this Competitive Impact Statement company that is in the metals mining or Judgment as may be requested. relating to the proposed Final Judgment processing business and is able to supply, on C. No information or documents obtained submitted for entry in this civil antitrust a long-term basis, sufficient Feedstock to by the means provided in this section shall proceeding. assure the United States, in its sole be divulged by the United States to any Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding discretion, that the Nikkelverk Refinery will person other than an authorized remain an economically viable competitive The United States filed a civil antitrust representative of the executive branch of the business. Complaint on June 23, 2006, seeking to United States, except in the course of legal The United States and defendants have enjoin the proposed acquisition by defendant proceedings to which the United States is a stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment Inco Limited (‘‘Inco’’) of defendant party (including grand jury proceedings), or may be entered after compliance with the Falconbridge Limited (’’Falconbridge’’). The for the purpose of securing compliance with APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment Complaint alleges that the likely effect of this this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required would terminate this action, except that the acquisition would be to lessen competition by law. Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, substantially in the development, production D. If at the time information or documents modify, or enforce the provisions of the and sale of high-purity nickel (’’High-Purity are furnished by defendants to the United proposed Final Judgment and to punish Nickel’’), i.e., a purer form of nickel used for States, defendants represent and identify in violations thereof. certain alloys such as those used in safety- writing the material in any such information critical parts for jet engines, in violation of or documents to which a claim of protection II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to Section 7 of the Clayton Act. This loss of may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the the Alleged Violation competition would likely result in higher Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and prices, lower quality, less innovation, and A. The Defendants and the Proposed defendants mark each pertinent page of such less favorable delivery terms to customers in Transaction material, ‘‘Subject to claim of protection the High-Purity Nickel market. Inco, a Canadian corporation, has its under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of At the same time the Complaint was filed, corporate headquarters and principal place of Civil Procedure,’’ then the United States shall the United States filed a Hold Separate business in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. As one give defendants ten (10) calendar days notice Stipulation and Order and a proposed Final of the largest mining companies in the world, prior to divulging such material in any legal Judgment. These are designed to eliminate Inco is primarily engaged in mining, proceeding (other than a grand jury the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition processing, and refining nickel, and also proceeding). while permitting Inco to complete its produces other elements, such as cobalt and XI. No Reacquisition acquisition of Falconbridge. Under the platinum group metals (‘‘PGMs’’), as by- Defendants may not reacquire any part of proposed Final Judgment, which is explained products of its nickel production. In 2005, the Divested Business during the term of this more fully below, Inco is required to divest Inco reported total sales of approximately Final Judgment. assets that include Falconbridge’s Nikkelverk $4.7 billion. The company’s main nickel refinery in Kristiansand, Norway mining, processing, and refining operations XII. Retention of Jurisdiction (’’Nikkelverk Refinery’’), and Falconbridge’s are located in Canada, although it also owns This Court retains jurisdiction to enable nickel marketing businesses. The proposed mines and processing facilities in many other any party to this Final Judgment to apply to Final Judgment requires that the divestiture parts of the world. Inco’s High-Purity Nickel this Court at any time for further orders and of these assets be made to LionOre Mining refining operations are located in Ontario, directions as may be necessary or appropriate International Ltd. (‘‘LionOre’’), a company Canada, and Wales, United Kingdom. Inco to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, headquartered in London, United Kingdom. operates in the United States through its to modify any of its provisions, to enforce LionOre is not currently involved in the wholly-owned subsidiary International compliance, and to punish violations of its refining of nickel, but owns nickel mining Nickel, Inc., located at Saddlebrook, New provisions. and processing resources in Africa and Jersey, which markets and sells in the United Australia, and has had plans to enter the States nickel and other products XIII. Expiration of Final Judgment business of refining nickel and thus become manufactured by Inco. Inco’s High-Purity Unless this Court grants an extension, this a fully-integrated nickel producer. Its Nickel is shipped to customers all over the Final Judgment shall expire ten years from acquisition of the Nikkelverk refinery and the world, including the United States. the date of its entry. other assets included in the proposed Falconbridge, a Canadian corporation, also divestiture will accelerate LionOre’s has its corporate headquarters and principal XIV. Public Interest Determination becoming a fully integrated nickel producer, place of business in Toronto, Ontario, Entry of this Final Judgment is in the and make it a viable and active competitor Canada. Like Inco, Falconbridge is one of the public interest. The parties have complied in the High-Purity Nickel market. world’s largest mining companies and with the requirements of the Antitrust The proposed Final Judgment requires that engages in all phases of the production of Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, the divestiture to LionOre take place nickel and other refined elements. The main including making copies available to the concurrently with the acquisition of products that Falconbridge produces are public of this Final Judgment, the Falconbridge by Inco. Under the terms of the nickel and copper, but the company also Competitive Impact Statement, and any Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, produces cobalt, PGMs, and other elemental comments thereon and the United States’ Falconbridge must maintain and preserve, metals as by-products of both its nickel and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41245

copper refining operations. In 2005, addition to containing the proper amount of directly in terms of price, quality, innovation Falconbridge reported total sales of nickel, the super alloy be as free as possible and delivery terms. The acquisition as approximately $7.7 billion. Falconbridge’s from certain trace elements that could originally proposed would eliminate all primary nickel mining and processing compromise the performance of the product competition between Inco and Falconbridge, facilities are located in Ontario, Canada, and result in serious problems, including reduce the number of significant worldwide although it also has such facilities engine failure. The nickel that meets these suppliers of High-Purity Nickel from three to worldwide. Falconbridge’s only High-Purity demanding requirements is High-Purity two, and substantially increase the likelihood Nickel refining operation is the Nikkelverk Nickel. High-Purity Nickel is refined nickel that Inco would unilaterally raise the price of Refinery located in Kristiansand, Norway. of sufficient purity and chemical High-Purity Nickel to a significant number of The company operates in the United States composition that it can be utilized for safety- customers. through its wholly-owned subsidiary, critical applications. Only a small portion of The Complaint also alleges that the merged Falconbridge U.S., Inc., located at Pittsburgh, the refined nickel produced in the world firm would have the ability to increase prices Pennsylvania, which markets and sells in the meets the specifications for High-Purity to certain customers of High-Purity Nickel United States nickel and other products Nickel. that must purchase High-Purity Nickel manufactured by Falconbridge. The High- High-Purity Nickel constitutes an essential because they use it in super alloys used for Purity Nickel produced by the Nikkelverk ingredient in the production of super alloys safety-critical. applications, even though Refinery is shipped to customers all over the used for safety-critical applications. The other customers purchase High-Purity Nickel world, including the United States. Complaint alleges that a small but significant for different uses and can often substitute Inco and Falconbridge entered into an post-acquisition increase in the price of High- non-High-Purity Nickel. The combined Inco agreement dated October 10, 2005, in which Purity Nickel would not cause purchasers of and Falconbridge would be able to determine super alloys used for safety-critical Inco stated that it intended to offer to their High-Purity Nickel customers’ end-uses applications to substitute non-High-Purity purchase all of the common shares of and identify which customers are purchasing Nickel or elements other than nickel so as to Falconbridge that it did not already own. High-Purity Nickel specifically for super make such a price increase unprofitable. Also pursuant to that agreement, alloys used for safety-critical applications. The Complaint also alleges that the Falconbridge’s Board of Directors stated that They could, therefore, charge customers that relevant geographic market is the world, it had determined that it is in the best are purchasing High-Purity Nickel for super because all of the High-Purity Nickel sold in interests of Falconbridge to support the offer, alloys used for safety-critical applications a the world is mined, processed, and refined recommend acceptance of Inco’s offer to higher price than customers that are outside of the United States, and both Inco holders of the common shares of purchasing High-Purity Nickel for other uses. and Falconbridge sell High-Purity Nickel Falconbridge, and use its reasonable best Successful entry or expansion by another efforts to permit Inco’s offer to be successful, throughout the world. Both companies firm into the development, manufacture, and on the terms and conditions contained in the import High-Purity Nickel into the United sale of High-Purity Nickel would be difficult, agreement. On October 24, 2005, Inco made States and sell that nickel to customers time-consuming, and costly. As alleged in the a formal offer to purchase all of the located throughout the United States. Complaint, companies not currently outstanding common shares of Falconbridge The market for High-Purity Nickel is producing nickel of any kind would require in a transaction valued at over $15 billion. already highly concentrated. Inco and roughly three to five years and the Inco’s offer originally was open for Falconbridge are by far the two largest expenditure of at least $100 million to build acceptance until December 23,2005, but this producers of High-Purity Nickel sold in the a refinery to produce finished nickel product, date has been extended several times, most United States and throughout the world. Inco and it would require even greater recently to June 30, 2006. The acquisition, and Falconbridge each account for at least 40 expenditures to enter the High-Purity Nickel among other things, would combine the percent of the worldwide sales of High-Purity operations of the two leading providers of Nickel. Combined, Inco and Falconbridge market. A new entrant in the High-Purity High-Purity Nickel worldwide. The United would account for over 80 percent of Nickel market must invest in additional States alleges in its Complaint that this worldwide High-Purity Nickel sales. equipment and processes to extract sufficient proposed transaction, as initially agreed to by Only three other companies have undesirable trace elements to produce the the defendants, would lessen competition demonstrated any ability to produce High- High-Purity Nickel required by makers of substantially in the market for High-Purity Purity Nickel. While one other finn super alloys used for safety-critical Nickel in violation of section 7 of the Clayton consistently produces High-Purity Nickel, its applications. Further, if not vertically Act. available capacity is substantially less than integrated, the new entrant also must secure that of either Inco or Falconbridge, and it nickel feed sources of sufficient quality B. The Competitive Effects of the Transaction cannot economically increase its capacity. needed to make High-Purity Nickel. The on the High-Purity Nickel Market Two other companies have produced small United States investigated whether nickel Nickel is a metallic element that is amounts of High-Purity Nickel, but are not producers not currently capable of producing particularly resistant to high temperatures, substantial competitors in the High-Purity High-Purity Nickel could easily enter the high stresses, and corrosion. Nickel is often Nickel market. While both have substantial High-Purity Nickel market. The investigation combined with other materials to form alloys capacity to make non-High-Purity Nickel, concluded, however, that such producers with particular performance characteristics. their current ability to make High-Purity would require an incremental investment of These performance characteristics depend on Nickel, and to make it on a consistent basis, millions of dollars over several years to the amount of nickel and other elements is very limited. The other current producers modify facilities and processes to become contained in the particular alloy. As a general of High-Purity Nickel do not have the ability, capable of producing High-Purity Nickel. A proposition, as the amount of nickel in the individually or collectively, to constrain small but significant price increase in High- alloy increases, the more resistant the alloy effectively a unilateral exercise of market Purity Nickel would not be sufficient to is to heat and stress. One sub-set of nickel- power in High-Purity nickel by a combined induce these companies to invest the based alloys is called super alloys, which Inco and Falconbridge. substantial time and money necessary to generally contain between 50 and 70 percent As alleged in the Complaint, High-Purity enter the High-Purity Nickel market. A new nickel, as well as specific amounts of other Nickel customers generally view Inco’s and entrant in the High-Purity Nickel market also elements, including iron, cobalt, and Falconbridge’s High-Purity Nickel as their must be able to produce High-Purity Nickel chromium, that combine to give the alloy only available options and do not view the in sufficient quantities, and with sufficiently very specific performance characteristics. products of other producers as viable consistent purity levels that customers could Super alloys are used primarily in chemical alternatives due to concerns relating to the depend on it reliably to provide the High- processing plants, medical applications, other producers’ quality, capacity, and Purity Nickel. Therefore, entry or expansion industrial power generation, and various reliability. The vigorous and aggressive by any other firm into the High-Purity Nickel aerospace applications. Many products made competition between Inco and Falconbridge market will not be timely, likely, or sufficient from super alloys, such as the rotating parts in the production and sale of High-Purity to defeat an anticompetitive price increase of jet engines, are considered safety-critical Nickel has benefitted these customers, as that would result from Inco’s acquisition of parts. For these parts, it is vital that, in Inco and Falconbridge have competed Falconbridge as originally proposed.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41246 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

III. Explanation of the Proposed Final the sale. Under such circumstances, the Final Judgment includes a complete Judgment United States’ competitive concerns are often descriptive list of related divestiture assets 1 The divestiture required by the proposed resolved by a ‘‘fix-it-first’’ remedy. A fix-it- designed to enable the Divested Business to 2 Final Judgment will eliminate the first remedy is a structural remedy that the compete vigorously. In summary, the list of anticompetitive effects of the acquisition in parties implement and the United States divested assets includes all tangible assets the market for High-Purity Nickel by accepts before a merger is consummated. In used in the development, production, establishing a new, independent, and such a case, there is no need for the United servicing, and sale of the products currently economically viable competitor, which will States to file a Complaint to preserve made at the Nikkelverk Refinery include essentially all of the current nickel competition. In this case, however, two (‘‘Nikkelverk Refinery Products’’); and all refining and marketing business of aspects of the remedy led the United States intangible assets that have been used Falconbridge. This divestiture is designed to to seek entry of a Final Judgment to ensure exclusively or primarily in the development, remedy the anticompetitive effects of the Court oversight of the defendants’ fulfillment production, servicing, and sale of products, proposed transaction while preserving of their commitments. (Antitrust Division including but not limited to all intellectual beneficial efficiencies that the parties Policy Guide to Merger Remedies, Section property, and trade names (including the anticipate achieving through the combination IV.A; p. 28.) First, preservation of product or trade name ‘‘SuperElectro’’). With of the other businesses of Inco and competition required not only that the respect to any other intangible assets that are Falconbridge. As discussed below, the Nikkelverk assets be divested, but that the used by the Divested Business and also have proposed Final Judgment provides that defendants continue to supply feedstock to been used by Falconbridge’s other businesses LionOre shall be the Acquirer of the Divested Nikkelverk for a number of years. (This part (i.e., the non-Divested Business), LionOre Business. It also provides that the divestiture of the remedy is described in more detail in may obtain a non-exclusive, non-transferable, to LionOre must be accomplished in such a Section III.C. below.) Second, in order to fully paid-up license for such intangible way as to demonstrate to the sole satisfaction expedite its purchase, LionOre will be assets (including the use of the name of the United States that the Divested issuing stock to Falconbridge, subject to the ‘‘Falconbridge’’). In addition, the proposed Business will remain viable and will remedy requirement that defendants sell within 150 Final Judgment requires Inco to provide the competitive harm alleged in the days any shares of LionOre that it receives as information to LionOre about current Complaint. The divestiture must also be partial payment for the sale of the Divested employees to enable LionOre to make offers accomplished in a manner that satisfies the Business. To ensure compliance with these of employment. The defendants will not United States, in its sole discretion, that none ongoing commitments, the United States interfere with any negotiations by LionOre to of the terms of any agreement between determined that a traditional ‘‘fix-it-first’’ employ any of Falconbridge’s employees LionOre and the defendants gives the remedy would not be appropriate, and that whose responsibilities include the research, defendants the ability unreasonably to raise it would be necessary to seek entry of the development, production, operation, or sale LionOre’s costs, lower LionOre’s efficiency, proposed Final Judgment. of the products of the Divested Business, or or otherwise interfere in the ability of Because this is not a traditional fix-it-first procurement of Feedstock from third parties. LionOre to compete effectively in the remedy, the United States also determined As noted above, the defendants bear these production and sale of High-Purity Nickel. that the proposed Final Judgment should obligations whether the sale is made to The proposed Final Judgment also provides anticipate the possibility, however remote, LionOre under Section IV, or to an for continued, contractually guaranteed that for some reason the sale to LionOre does Alternative Acquirer under Section V. suitable refinery feeds (‘‘Feedstock’’) to not take place. Section V of the proposed The United States is satisfied that LionOre Nikkelverk through the establishment and Final Judgment therefore requires that, if the possesses the incentive and capability to use continuation of a Feedstock supply divestiture to LionOre does not occur in the the Divested Business to compete agreement between LionOre and the manner called for in Section IV, a trustee will successfully in the High-Purity Nickel defendants, to supplement LionOre’s own be appointed to sell the assets to an market. The proposed Final Judgment feedstock supplies. Alternative Acquirer. For the most part, the provides that the United States must also be assets to be divested, and the Defendants’ satisfied that the manner in which the A. Identification of LionOre as the Purchaser obligations regarding the divestiture, are the divestiture to LionOre is accomplished, and of the Divested Business same whether the sale is made to LionOre any agreements between the defendants and A number of considerations led the United under Section IV or an Alternative Acquirer LionOre, do not interfere with the ability of States to specifically approve and designate under Section V. However, since, unlike LionOre to compete successfully in that LionOre as the entity to whom the Divested LionOre, an Alternative Acquirer has not market. already entered into agreements with the Business should be sold. In the course of its C. Feedstock Supply investigation, the United States determined defendants, the proposed Final Judgment that competition in the High-Purity Nickel gives the Alternative Acquirer the option to As part of the divestiture. the proposed market would be most effectively preserved enter into such agreements, including the Final Judgment also addresses the potential if the divestiture of the Nikkelverk assets ability to choose among several options, as need for LionOre to have reliable and were made to a purchaser that possessed its discussed below, regarding the manner in sufficient Feedstock supply for the Divested own nickel feedstock sources, thus helping to which third-party feedstocks will be secured. Business. This is accomplished in three ways. First, Inco has entered into a supply ensure that Nikkelverk would have a secure B. Assets and long-term source of supply. LionOre agreement (‘‘Supply Agreement’’) with The Divested Business as defined in the satisfies that criterion. The defendants LionOre by which Inco commits to supply proposed Final Judgment means identified LionOre as a potential purchaser of Feedstock, produced by Inco, to be used in Falconbridge Nikkelverk A/S (the Nikkelverk the Divested Business that satisfies this operating the Nikkelverk Refinery. Second, Refinery in Norway), Falconbridge’s three criterion, and the United States undertook an Inco has agreed to divest to LionOre the current-nickel marketing arms (Falconbridge, evaluation of LionOre and determined that Falconbridge group that is responsible, in U.S., Inc.; Falconbridge Europe S.A.; and its ownership of Nikkelverk would preserve part, for procuring feedstock for Nikkelverk Falconbridge (Japan) Limited), Falconbridge vigorous competition in the High-Purity from third parties along with existing third- International Limited (‘‘FIL’’), the Nickel market. Additionally, the defendants party supply agreements. Third, as a miner Falconbridge subsidiary responsible for the and LionOre had agreed on the terms of the and processor of nickel, including feedstock current acquisition of feedstock from third divestiture, and entered into a number of currently refined at Nikkelverk, LionOre has parties, and related assets. The proposed subordinate agreements that will help ensure that LionOre will be able to operate 2 The assets to be divested to an Alternative 1 Nikkelverk successfully. A fix-it-first remedy has several benefits, Acquirer, defined as the Alternative Divested Given the parties’ agreement with LionOre including quick and certain divestiture, removing Business, are the same as those to be divested to the need for litigation, allowing the Antitrust LionOre, except that FIL is not included. The and the United States’ determination that the Division to use its resources more efficiently, and proposed Final Judgment gives the Alternative divestiture to LionOre would resolve the saving society from incurring real costs. (Antitrust Acquirer the option of acquiring FlL, but does not competitive concerns, the United States Division Policy Guide to Merger Remedies, Section require the acquisition; LionOre has already chosen drafted the proposed Final Judgment to order IV.A, p. 27) to acquire FIL.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41247

current and long-term access to feedstock of anticompetitive collusion between Inco and position of today’s Falconbridge, and thereby its own. the Nikkelverk refinery. Moreover, key compete effectively in the High-Purity Nickel Under the Supply Agreement provision, it provisions of the agreement are expected to market. is the option of LionOre to procure from Inco check the ability of Inco to abuse the supply An Alternative Acquirer who purchases the same or substantially the same quality relationship with LionOre. The price LionOre the Alternative Divested Business from the and volume of Feedstock provided by will pay Inco for Feedstock has been set trustee will also have the option of entering Falconbridge to the Nikkelverk Refinery. through negotiations between Inco and into a Supply Agreement of up to ten years. Currently, Falconbridge provides about 70% LionOre, and any price changes will be The Alternative Acquirer will be a company of the Feedstock for the Nikkelverk Refinery linked directly to changes in the price for that is in the metals mining or processing from its own operations. At the option of finished nickel as published independently business and able to supply on a long-term LionOre, such Supply Agreement may have by the London Metal Exchange. This wi1l basis, sufficient Feedstock to assure the a term of up to ten years. The terms and further ensure that Inco, as required under United States, in its sole discretion, that the conditions of the Supply Agreement must be the proposed Final Judgment, can take no Nikkelverk Refinery will be a viable commercially reasonable and designed to pricing action under the Supply Agreement competitive business. An Alternative enable LionOre to compete effectively in the to interfere with or impede the ability of Acquirer will also have the option to obtain sale of High-Purity Nickel, and must be LionOre to compete effectively in the sale of the right to third-party feedstock comparable approved by the United States in its sole High-Purity Nickel. Regarding the quality of to that provided by Falconbridge’s interest in discretion. The proposed Final Judgment also Feedstock or other performance under the existing third-party supply agreements, provides that Inco give the United States Supply Agreement, contract specifications although it would not be required to do so thirty days notice before implementing any for Feedstock are well-defined and by acquiring FIL as part of the divested material change to the Supply Agreement chemically measurable, and inferior quality assets. It may instead choose to provide for related to the length of the Supply or performance will be easily detected and third-party feedstock supply through the Agreement, to the volume and quality of the remedied. defendants’ assigning existing third-party Feedstock, or price, and further provides that The fact that High-Purity Nickel is a agreements to the Alternative Acquirer, or by Inco in the performance of the Supply relatively small part of total Nikkelverk the defendants entering into new agreements Agreement will take no action to interfere Refinery sales would make it difficult for with the Alternative Acquirer to procure with LionOre’s ability to compete. Inco to harm competition in the High-Purity third-party feedstock. Although the Antitrust Division generally Nickel market by disrupting supply to Securing access to feedstock in the manner disfavors long-term supply agreements, the Nikkelverk. If Inco cut a portion of feedstock provided by the proposed Final Judgment is Division has agreed to a long-term supply supply, the Nikkelverk Refinery easily could more advantageous than the divestiture of agreement here for three reasons. First, long- maintain its output of High-Purity Nickel one or more mines that are currently used to term supply agreements are common in this using its feedstock used for other nickel. supply Nikkelverk. The combination of the industry and may be necessary to ensure Nor will the Supply Agreement facilitate Inco and Falconbridge mines in Ontario is LionOre’s ability to compete effectively. anticompetitive collusion between Inco and the source of a substantial portion of the Second, the agreement is structured in a way LionOre. There appear to be no structural efficiencies that the parties anticipate they that minimizes the potential risks normally reasons to anticipate that, in an industry will realize via the proposed acquisition. associated with supply agreements. Third, where feedstock is generally destined for Therefore, it is appropriate to craft a remedy the use of a supply agreement preserves many end-uses of nickel, Inco could use the that preserves competition without substantial efficiencies the parties anticipate supply contract to coordinate with LionOre unnecessarily disrupting potential from the Inco/Falconbridge acquisition. to unlawfully restrain trade in the High- efficiencies. Providing LionOre the option of obtaining Purity Nickel market. Although Inco will D. Timing of the Divestiture nickel feedstock from Inco through the supply up to 70% of the Nikkelverk Supply Agreement may be critical to its Refinery’s feedstock, it will have incomplete In antitrust cases involving mergers in ability to compete effectively. Supply information about the Nikkelverk Refinery’s which the United States seeks a divestiture agreements of up to fifteen or twenty years other sources of feedstock, and no remedy, it requires completion of the are not uncommon in this industry because information about its total production, divestiture within the shortest time period refineries are configured to process feedstock product mix, and prices.3 reasonable under the circumstances. In this from specific sources, and a long-term The other sources of suitable feedstock for case, because Inco and Falconbridge have relationship encourages and ensures long- the new firm will be LionOre itself and third significant sales and operations in Europe as term profitability as capital expenditures are parties. Currently, third parties, including a well as the United States, the European made to the refinery to suit the feedstock. In company partly owned by LionOre, provide Commission must also review Inco’s this instance, moreover, a long-term supply about 30% of the Nikkelverk Refinery’s proposed acquisition of Falconbridge. The agreement provides LionOre time to develop Feedstock pursuant to long term contracts proposed Final Judgment requires that, if and adapt the Nikkelverk Refinery to new with Falconbridge. Under the proposed Final Inco assumes control of Falconbridge, it must feedstock sources. LionOre will have Judgment, LionOre will acquire Falconbridge concurrently divest the Divested Business to incentives to make this transition, but the International Limited (‘‘FIL’’). FIL is a LionOre as required by the proposed Final ten-year Supply Agreement ensures that Barbados corporation and is the subsidiary of Judgment. During the period before Inco sufficient time is available for LionOre to Falconbridge responsible, in part, for the consummates the transaction with compete effectively while developing its own current acquisition of Feedstock from third Falconbridge, a Hold Separate Stipulation sources and establishing relationships with parties. By acquiring FIL, LionOre will also and Order will preserve the assets to be new third-party sources of feedstock. It is be acquiring the Third-Party Supply divested, and require that Inco and contemplated that LionOre will over time Agreements that have been made with FIL, Falconbridge continue to operate them as an supply increasing portions of the Nikkelverk which currently represent thirty percent of independent competitor in the High-Purity feedstock from its own mines and processing Nikkelverk’ s total feedstock supply. Nickel market. During this time, Inco and facilities, and will eventually be able to The Supply Agreement with Inco, the Falconbridge are required to take the operate Nikkelverk without the need for any acquisition of FIL and its existing third-party necessary steps to ensure that the assets Inco feedstock. Until that occurs, however, it feedstock, and LionOre’s own substantial remain an economically viable and ongoing is important to ensure that Nikkelverk will feedstock resources will ensure that LionOre business concern that is not influenced by have the same quality and quantity of has sufficient Feedstock at commercial terms the consummation of the acquisition, and feedstock that it currently obtains from to operate the Divested Business as a viable, otherwise maintain all competition during Falconbridge. ongoing business that can stand in the the pendency of the ordered divestiture. The Supply Agreement between Inco and The United States and the defendants fully LionOre ensures that Inco will not be able to 3 It is also important to note that in this industry expect that the divestiture to LionOre will disadvantage the Nikkelverk Refinery supply agreements are common and appear to work take place. In the event that it does not, through Feedstock pricing or quality, or by well. Indeed, Nikkelverk currently relies on such however, the proposed Final Judgment supply disruptions, and should not facilitate contracts for much of the feedstock that it uses. provides that a trustee will be appointed to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41248 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

sell the Alternative Divested Business. If the The APPA provides a period of at least including consideration of the public benefit, trustee has not effected a divestiture within sixty days preceding the effective date of the if any, to be derived from a determination of six months of the trustee’s appointment, the proposed Final Judgment within which any the issues at trial. 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). trustee shall file a report with the Court, and person may submit to the United States As the United States Court of Appeals for the the Court shall thereafter enter whatever written comments regarding the proposed District of Columbia Circuit has held, the orders may be necessary to carry out the Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to APPA permits a court to consider, among purposes of the proposed Final Judgment. comment should do so within sixty days of other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations E. Financing the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register. All set forth in the government’s complaint, The Division has never favored seller comments received during this period will be whether the decree is sufficiently clear, financing of divestitures, because such considered by the Department of Justice, whether enforcement mechanisms are arrangements create an avenue for the seller which remains free to withdraw its consent sufficient, and whether the decree may to influence the business decisions of the to the proposed Final Judgment at any time positively harm third parties. See United company to whom the assets have been sold. prior to the Court’s entry of judgment. The States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, In some cases, it may also signal that the comments and the response of the United 1458–62 (D.C. Cir. 1995). proposed purchaser has insufficient States will be filed with the Court and ‘‘Nothing in this section shall be construed resources to be a viable competition. published in the Federal Register. to require the court to conduct an evidentiary In this case, although LionOre will finance Written comments should be submitted to: hearing or to require the court to permit the majority of its acquisition of the divested Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Litigation II Section, anyone to intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). business on its own, the purchase agreement 1401 H St., NW., Suite 3000, Antitrust Thus, in conducting this inquiry, ‘‘[t]he court between Falconbridge and LionOre Division, United States Department of is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to contemplates a partial payment to Justice, Washington, DC 20530. engage in extended proceedings which might Falconbridge in the form of LionOre stock. The proposed Final Judgment provides that have the effect of vitiating the benefits of The proposed Final Judgment provides, the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, prompt and less costly settlement through however, that any issuance of LionOre stock and the parties may apply to the Court for the consent decree process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec. to Falconbridge must be strictly limited to no any order necessary or appropriate for the 24,598 (1973) (statement of Senator more than 19.99% or 49,118,057 shares, 4 modification, interpretation, or enforcement Tunney). Rather: defendants are not permitted to exercise any of the proposed Final Judgment. [a]bsent a showing of corrupt failure of the voting or control rights associated with those government to discharge its duty, the Court, shares, and, perhaps most importantly, VII. Alternatives to the Proposed Final in making its public interest finding, should defendants must divest themselves Judgment * * * carefully consider the explanations of completely of those shares within 150 days The United States considered, as an the government in the competitive impact of the divestiture of Nikkelverk to LionOre. alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, statement and its responses to comments in Under these circumstances, the Division a full trial on the merits against defendants. order to determine whether those determined that there was no possibility that The United States could have continued the explanations are reasonable under the the dangers associated with seller financing litigation and sought preliminary and circumstances. could materialize, and that the short-term permanent injunctions against Inco’s issuance of these shares to Falconbridge United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., acquisition of Falconbridge. The United created no risk to competition. In addition, 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 States is satisfied, however, that the the Division determined that the short-term (W.D. Mo. 1977). divestiture of assets described in the issuance of LionOre stock was necessitated Accordingly, with respect to the adequacy proposed Final Judgment will preserve by the proposed speed of the divestiture, to of the relief secured by the decree, a court take place immediately upon the success of competition for the provision of High-Purity may not ‘‘engage in an unrestricted Inco’s tender offer. The Division determined Nickel as it existed prior to the proposed evaluation of what relief would best serve the that with a longer divestiture period, LionOre acquisition, and that such a remedy would public.’’ United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d was fully able to finance the transaction achieve all or substantially all the relief the 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States without resorting to the issuance of stock to government would have obtained through v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. Falconbridge. litigation, but avoids the time and expense of 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460– a trial. 62. Courts have held that: V. Remedies Available to Potential Private Litigants VIII. Standard of Review Under the APPA [t]he balancing of competing social and for the Proposed Final Judgment political interests affected by a proposed Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15) antitrust consent decree must be left, in the provides that any person who has been The APPA requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the first instance, to the discretion of the injured as a result of conduct prohibited by Attorney General. The court’s role in the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the Court shall protecting the public interest is one of court to recover three times the damages the insuring that the government has not person has suffered, as well as costs and determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment ‘‘is in the public interest.’’ 15 breached its duty to the public in consenting reasonable attorneys’ fees. Entry of the to the decree. The court is required to proposed Final Judgment will neither impair U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court shall consider: determine not whether a particular decree is nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust the one that will best serve society, but damage action. Under the provisions of (A) The competitive impact of such Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and 4 See United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 16(a)), the proposed Final Judgment has no 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (recognizing it was not the prima facie effect in any subsequent private modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies court’s duty to settle; rather, the court must only lawsuit that may be brought against the answer ‘‘whether the settlement achieved [was] defendants. actually considered, whether its terms are within the reaches of the public interest’’). A ambiguous, and any other competitive ‘‘public interest’’ determination can be made VI. Procedures Available for Modification of considerations bearing upon the adequacy of properly on the basis of the Competitive Impact the Proposed Final Judgment such judgment that the court deems Statement and Response to Comments filed by the The United States and defendants have necessary to a determination of whether the Department of Justice pursuant to the APPA. stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment consent judgment is in the public interest; Although the APPA authorizes the use of additional may be entered by the Court after compliance and procedures, 15 U.S.C. 16(f), those procedures are (B) The impact of entry of such judgment discretionary. A court need not invoke any of them with the provisions of the APPA, provided unless it believes that the comments have raised that the United States has not withdrawn its upon competition in the relevant market or significant issues and that further proceedings consent. The APPA conditions entry upon markets, upon the public generally and would aid the court in resolving those issues. See the Court’s determination that the proposed individuals alleging specific injury from the H.R. Rep. No. 93–1463, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess. 8–9 Final Judgment is in the public interest. violations set forth in the complaint (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41249

whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202– of the public interest.’’ More elaborate Division, Litigation II Section, Washington, 307–0468). requirements might undermine the DC 20530. effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by J. Robert Kramer II, [FR Doc. 06–6361 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] consent decree. Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) In the United States District Court for the (citations omitted).5 District of Columbia The proposed Final Judgment, therefore, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE United States of America, Department of should not be reviewed under a standard of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, whether it is certain to eliminate every Antitrust Division NW.; Suite 300, Washington, DC 20530, anticompetitive effect of a particular practice Plaintiff, v. The McClatchy Company, 2100 Q or whether it mandates certainty of free United States v. The McClatchy Street, Sacramento, CA 95816, and Knight- competition in the future. Court approval of Company and Knight-Ridder Ridder, Incorporated, 50 West San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Defendants a final judgment requires a standard more Incorporated; Proposed Final flexible and less strict than the standard Judgment and Competitive Impact Case Number 1:06CV01175, Judge: Richard required for a finding of liability. ‘‘[A] W. Roberts, Deck Type: Antitrust, Date Statement proposed decree must be approved even if it Stamp: 06/27/2006. falls short of the remedy the court would Complaint impose on its own, as long as it falls within Notice is hereby given pursuant to the the range of acceptability or is ‘within the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the reaches of public interest.’’’ United States v. 15 U.S.C. 16(b) through (h), that a United States, brings this civil antitrust AT&T, 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation action to prevent the proposed merger of The (citations omitted) (quoting Gillette, 406 F. and Competitive Impact Statement have McClatchy Company and Knight-Ridder, Supp. at 716), aff’d sub nom. Maryland v. been filed with the United States Incorporated. These two newspaper United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983); see also District Court for the District of publishing companies are each other’s United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 Columbia in United States of America v. primary competitor in the sale of local daily F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving The Clatchy Company and Knight- newspapers to readers in the Minneapolis/St. the consent decree even though the court Ridder, Incorporated, Case No. Paul metropolitan area in the state of Minnesota, and in the sale of advertising in would have imposed a greater remedy). 1:06CV01175. On June 27, 2006, the Moreover, the Court’s role under the APPA such newspapers. The merger would United States filed a Complaint alleging is limited to reviewing the remedy in substantially lessen competition and tend to relationship to the violations that the United that the proposed merger of The create a monopoly in the publishing and States has alleged in its Complaint, and does McClatchy Company and Knight- distribution of newspapers in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. not authorize the Court to ‘‘construct [its] Ridder, Incorporated would violate own hypothetical case and then evaluate the Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. I. Jurisdiction and Venue decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed 1. This action is filed by the United States at 1459. Because the ‘‘court’s authority to the same time as the Complaint, pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as review the decree depends entirely on the requires defendant The McClatchy amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to obtain equitable government’s exercising its prosecutorial Company to divest the Pioneer Press, a relief to prevent a violation of Section 7 of discretion by bringing a case in the first daily newspaper distributed in the the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18. place,’’ it follows that ‘‘the court is only Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, 2. Both defendants sell newspapers and sell advertising in such newspapers, a authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and along with certain tangible and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to commercial activity that substantially affects intangible assets. Copies of the inquire into other matters that the United and is in the flow of interstate commerce. States did not pursue. Id. at 1459–60. Complaint, proposed Final Judgment The Court has jurisdiction over the subject and Competitive Impact Statement are matter of this action and jurisdiction over the IX. Determinative Documents available for inspection at the parties pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 22, 25, and 26, and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337. There are no determinative materials or Department of Justice in Washington, 3. Both defendants conduct business in the documents within the meaning of the APPA DC in Room 215, 325 Seventh Street, District of Columbia and have consented to that were considered by the United States in NW., and at the Office of the Clerk of the plaintiff’s assertion that venue in this formulating the proposed Final Judgment. the United States District Court for the District is proper under 15 U.S.C. 22 and 28 Dated: June 23, 2006. District of Columbia, Washington, DC. U.S.C. 1391(c). Respectfully submitted, Public comment is invited within 60 II. Defendants and the Proposed Merger Karen Phillips-Savoy, days of the date of this notice. Such 4. Defendant The McClatchy Company Dando Cellini, comments, and responses thereto, will (‘‘McClatchy’’) is a Delaware corporation Jillian Charles, be published in the Federal Register with its headquarters in Sacramento, James Foster, California. McClatchy publishes twelve (12) Christine Hill, and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed to John R. Read, daily newspapers throughout the United Tara Shinnick, States. In the Minneapolis/St. Paul Robert Wilder, Chief, Litigation III Section, Antitrust metropolitan area, McClatchy owns and Division, United States Department of operates the Star Tribune. 5 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 463 (holding that the Jusstice, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300, 5. Defendant Knight-Ridder, Incorporated court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA] is (‘‘Knight-Ridder’’) is a Florida corporation limited to approving or disapproving the consent With its headquarters in San Jose, California. decree’’); Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716 (noting that, Knight-Ridder publishes thirty-two (32) daily in this way, the court is constrained to ‘‘look at the newspapers throughout the United States. In overall picture not hypercritically, nor with a the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, microscope, but with an artist’s reducing glass’’). See generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing Knight-Ridder owns and operates the St. Paul whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained in the decree are] Pioneer Press. so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to 6. On March 12, 2006, McClatchy and fall outside of the ‘‘reaches of the public interest’’). Knight-Ridder entered into an ‘‘Agreement

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:14 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41250 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

and Plan of Merger between The McClatchy Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press advertisements in local daily newspapers Company and Knight-Ridder, Inc.’’ (‘‘Merger compete for readers is so that they can better service the Minneapolis/St. Paul Agreement’’). Pursuant to that agreement, (1) compete for advertisers. metropolitan area, it would lose too few sales Knight-Ridder would merge with and into 12. Advertising in the Star Tribune and the to make the price increase unprofitable. McClatchy; (2) Knight-Ridder would cease to St. Paul Pioneer Press allows advertisers to 18. Accordingly, the Minneapolis/St. Paul exist as a separate corporate entity; and (3) reach a broad cross-section of consumers in metropolitan area in the state of Minnesota McClatchy would continue to operate as the the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is a section of the country, or a relevant sole surviving company. As consideration for with a detailed message in a timely manner. geographic market, within the meaning of the merger, each share of Knight-Ridder A substantial portion of the defendants’ Section 7 of the Clayton Act. common stock would be exchanged for cash advertisers do not consider other types of and stock, for an aggregate transaction value advertising, such as advertising in weekly IV. Competitive Effects in excess of $4 billion. newspapers, on radio, on television, or on the A. Harm to Readers 7. The merger would combine under Internet as adequate substitutes for 19. The Star Tribune and the St. Paul common ownership and control the only two advertising in a local daily newspaper. In the Pioneer Press are each other’s primary local daily newspapers serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, the competitor in the sale of local daily Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area with Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press newspaper in the Minneapolis/St. Paul any significant circulation, the Star Tribune provide advertisers the best vehicle to metropolitan area, competing aggressively for and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. advertise the price of their goods or services readers. Their head-to-head competition has 8. The combination of these two daily in a timely manner. If the merged firm were given readers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul newspapers would substantially reduce or to impose a small but significant and metropolitan area higher quality news eliminate competition for the sale of local nontransitory increase in the price of coverage, better service, and lower prices. A daily newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul advertising in local daily newspapers, it combination of these two newspapers under metropolitan area and would likely result in would lose too few sales to make the price common ownership and control would higher prices and lower levels of quality and increase unprofitable. substantially reduce or eliminate that service. 13. Accordingly, the sale of local daily competition and would decrease incentives 9. In addition, the combination of these newspapers to readers and the sale of access of the merged firm to maintain high levels of two daily newspapers would substantially to those readers to advertisers in those quality and service. reduce or eliminate competition for the sale newspapers each constitutes a line of 20. The proposed merger would give the of advertising in local daily newspapers in commerce, or a relevant product market, newly merged entity almost 100 percent of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area within the meaning of Section 7 of the local daily newspaper circulation in the and advertisers would likely pay higher Clayton Act. Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. prices and receive lower levels of quality and Based on audited figures for daily circulation service for their advertisements. B. Geographic Market ending March 2004, the Star Tribune had a III. Relevant Market 14. The Star Tribune and the St. Paul daily circulation of 296,069 or approximately Pioneer Press are both produced, published, 64 percent of readers, and the St. Paul A. Product Market and distributed in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Pioneer Press had a daily circulation of 10. Local daily newspapers, such as the metropolitan area. 159,223, or approximately 34 percent of Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, 15. The Star Tribune and the St. Paul readers, in the Minneapolis/St. Paul provide a unique package of services to their Pioneer Press target readers in the metropolitan area. Based on audited figures readers. They provide national, state, and Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Both for Sunday circulation ending March 2004, local news in a timely manner. The news papers provide news relating to the the Star Tribune had a Sunday circulation of stories featured in the Star Tribune and the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area in 517,685, or approximately 72 percent of St. Paul Pioneer Press are detailed, as addition to state and national news. readers, and the St. Paul Pioneer Press had compared to the news as reported by radio Together, the Star Tribune and the St. Paul a daily circulation of 203,471, or or television, and cover a wide range of Pioneer Press generate approximately 80 approximately 28 percent of readers, in the stories of interest to local readers in the percent of their total circulation from the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, not Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. 21. The only other local daily newspaper just major news highlights. Newspapers, such 16. Local daily newspapers that serve areas competitor of the merged firm in the as the Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is the Press, are portable and allow the reader to metropolitan area do not provide local news Stillwater Gazette with a daily circulation read the news, advertisements, and other specific to the Minneapolis/St. Paul (excluding Sunday) of 3,255 in the year information at his or her own convenience. metropolitan area. From a reader’s ending in March 2004, which represents less Readers also value other features of the Star standpoint, local daily newspapers serving than one percent of readers. Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, such areas outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul 22. Using a measure of market as calendars of local events and meetings, metropolitan area are not acceptable concentration called the Herfindahl- movie and TV listings, classified substitutes for the Star Tribune and the St. Hirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’), explained in advertisements, commercial advertisements, Paul Pioneer Press. If the merged firm were Appendix A, the combination of the Star legal notices, comics, syndicated columns, to impose a small but significant and Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press under and obituaries. Readers of the Star Tribune nontransitory increase in the price of local common ownership and control would create and the St. Paul Pioneer Press do not daily newspapers serving the Minneapolis/ a monopoly and yield a post-merger HHI of consider weekly newspapers, radio news, St. Paul metropolitan area, it would lose too approximately 9,900, representing an television news, or Internet news to be few sales to make the price increase increase of roughly 4,488 points for daily adequate substitutes for local daily unprofitable. circulation. For Sunday circulation, the newspapers serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul 17. The Star Tribune and the St. Paul combination of the Star Tribune and the St. metropolitan area. If the merged firm were to Pioneer Press allow advertisers to target Paul Pioneer Press would yield an HHI of impose a small but significant and readers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul approximately 10,000, an increase of roughly nontransitory increase in the price of local metropolitan area. From the standpoint of an 4,050 points. daily newspapers, it would lose too few sales advertiser selling goods or services in the to make the price increase unprofitable. Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, B. Harm to Advertisers 11. A newspaper’s ability to attract readers advertising in local daily newspapers serving 23. The Star Tribune and the St. Paul and build its circulation is not only critical areas outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Pioneer Press are each other’s primary to competition for readers; it also directly metropolitan area is not an acceptable competitor in the sale of advertising in local affects its ability to compete for advertisers. substitute for advertising in the Star Tribune daily newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul A newspaper that has more readers is more and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. If the merged metropolitan area, competing aggressively for attractive and more valuable to advertisers. firm were to impose a small but significant the business of advertisers in that area. Their Thus, one important reason that the Star and nontransitory increase in the price of head-to-head competition has been

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41251

instrumental in giving advertisers in the (a) Adjudication that the proposed merger And whereas, Defendants agree to be Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area of McClatchy and Knight-Ridder violates bound by the provisions of this Final higher quality advertising, better service, and Section 7 of the Clayton Act; Judgment pending its approval by the Court; lower prices. A combination of these two (b) Permanent injunctive relief to prevent And whereas, the essence of this Final newspapers under common ownership and the consummation of the proposed merger Judgment is the prompt and certain control would substantially reduce or and to prevent the defendants from entering divestiture of certain rights or assets by the eliminate that competition. into or carrying out any agreement, Defendant McClatchy to assure that 24. If the two papers combine under understanding or plan, the effect of which competition is not substantially lessened; common ownership and control, the would be to combine the businesses or assets And whereas, Plaintiff requires Defendant combined entity would control virtually 100 of defendants; McClatchy to make certain divestitures for percent of the sales of advertisements in local (c) An award to plaintiff of its costs in this the purpose of remedying the loss of daily newspapers serving the Minneapolis/ action; and competition alleged in the Complaint; St. Paul metropolitan area. In 2005, the Star (d) Such other relief as is proper. And whereas, Defendant McClatchy has Tribune generated $308 million, or Dated: June 27, 2006. represented to the United States that the approximately 68 percent, in total daily divestitures required below can and will be newspaper advertising revenues. The St. Paul For Plaintiff United States of America. made and that Defendant McClatchy will Pioneer Press generated $140 million, or Thomas O. Barnett, later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty approximately 32 percent, in total daily Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust as grounds for asking the Court to modify any newspaper advertising revenues. The vast Division. of the divestiture provisions contained majority of these advertising revenues come David L. Meyer, below; from advertisers seeking to reach readers in Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Now, therefore, before any testimony is the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Division. taken, without trial or adjudication of any V. Entry J. Robert Kramer II, issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the patties, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed: 25. Entry by local daily newspapers in the Director of Operations. Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is John R. Read, I. Jurisdiction time-consuming and difficult, and is not Chief, Litigation III. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject likely to eliminate the anticompetitive effects Gregg I. Malawer (D.C. Bar #481685), matter of and each of the parties to this of the merger by constraining the market Joan Hogan, action. The Complaint states a claim upon power of the combined entity in the near- Attorneys for the United States, United States which relief may be granted against term, or in the foreseeable future. Local daily Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, defendant under Section 7 of the Clayton newspapers incur significant fixed costs, Litigation III, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 18). many of which are sunk. Examples of these 300, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514– II. Definitions sunk costs include hiring reporters and 2000. editors, news gathering, and marketing the As used in this Final Judgment: very existence of the new paper, all of which Exhibit A—Definition of HHI and A. ‘‘McClatchy’’ means Defendant The take substantial time. In the event that the Calculations for Market McClatchy Company, a Delaware corporation entrant fails or exits the newspaper industry, ‘‘HHI’’ means the Herfindahl-Hirschman with its headquarters in Sacramento, it cannot recover these sunk costs, making Index, a commonly accepted measure of California, its successors and assigns, and its entry risky and likely unprofitable. As a market concentration. It is calculated by subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, result, entry will not be timely, likely, or squaring the market share of each firm partnerships and joint ventures, and their sufficient to eliminate the competitive harm competing in the market and then summing directors, officers, managers, agents, and that would likely result from the proposed the resulting numbers. For example, for a employees. merger. market consisting of four firms with shares of B. ‘‘Knight Ridder’’ means Defendant VI. Violation Alleged thirty, thirty, twenty and twenty percent, the Knight Ridder, Inc., a Florida corporation 2 2 2 2 26. On March 12, 2006, McClatchy, and HHI is 2600 (30 + 30 + 20 + 20 = 2600). with its headquarters in San Jose, California, Knight-Ridder entered into the Merger The HHI takes into account the relative size its successors and assigns, and its Agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, and distribution of the firms in a market and subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, Knight-Ridder would merge with and into approaches zero when a market consists of a partnerships and joint ventures, and their McClatchy. As a result of this transaction, the large number of finns of relatively equal size. directors, officers, managers, agents, and Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press The HHI increases both as the number of employees. would be under common ownership and firms in the market decreases and as the C. ‘‘Pioneer Press’’ or ‘‘St. Paul Pioneer control. disparity in size between those firms Press’’ means the local daily newspaper 27. This transaction will have the increases. referred to as either the Pioneer Press or the following effects, among others, in violation Markets in which the HHI is between 1000 St. Paul Pioneer Press, distributed in the of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18: and 1800 points are considered to be Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, and (a) Competition in the sale of local daily moderately concentrated, and those in which owned and operated by defendant newspapers to readers in the Minneapolis/St. the HHI is in excess of 1800 points are McClatchy. Paul metropolitan area will be substantially considered to be concentrated. Transactions D. ‘‘Star Tribune’’ means the local daily lessened or eliminated; that increase the HHI by more than 100 newspaper, distributed in the Minneapolis/ (b) Prices for local daily newspapers in the points in concentrated markets St. Paul metropolitan area, and owned and Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area presumptively raise antitrust concerns under operated by defendant McClatchy. would likely increase to levels above those the Merger Guidelines. See Merger E. ‘‘Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan that would prevail absent the merger; Guidelines § 1.51. area’’ means the area encompassing and surrounding the cities of Minneapolis and St. (c) Competition in the sale of advertising Proposed Final Judgment in local daily newspapers in the Paul in the state of Minnesota. Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area will Whereas, Plaintiff, United States of F. ‘‘Divestiture Assets’’ means all of the be substantially lessened or eliminated; and America, and defendants, The McClatchy assets, tangible or intangible, used in the (d) Prices for advertising in local daily Company (‘‘McClatchy’’), and Knight Ridder, operations of the Pioneer Press, including, newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Incorporated (‘‘Knight Ridder’’), by their but not limited to: metropolitan area would likely increase to respective attorneys, have consented to the 1. All tangible assets that comprise the levels above those that would prevail absent entry of this Final Judgment without trial or printing, publication, distribution, sale, and the merger. adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and operation of the Pioneer Press, including all without this Final Judgment constituting any equipment, fixed assets and fixtures, VII. Requested Relief evidence against or admission by any party personal property, inventory, office furniture, 28. Plaintiff requests: regarding any issue of fact or law; materials, supplies, and other tangible

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41252 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

property and all assets used in connection Judgment. Defendant McClatchy shall offer to judgment, has the intent and capability with the Pioneer Press; all licenses, permits furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject (including the necessary managerial, and authorizations issued by any to customary confidentiality assurances, all operational, and financial capability) of governmental organization relating to the information and documents relating to the competing effectively in the sale of local Pioneer Press; all contracts, agreements, Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a daily newspapers to readers and in the sale leases, commitments, certifications, and due diligence process, except such of advertising in such newspapers in the understandings relating to the Pioneer Press, information or documents subject to the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan areas; and including supply agreements; all customer attorney-client or work product privileges. 2. Shall be accomplished so as to satisfy lists, contracts, accounts, and credit records; Defendant McClatchy shall make available the United States, in its sole discretion, that all repair and performance records and all such information to the United States at the none of the terms of any agreement(s) other records relating to the Pioneer Press; same time that such information is made between an Acquirer or Acquirers and 2. All intangible assets used in the available to any other person. defendant McClatchy give Defendant printing, publication, distribution, C. Defendant McClatchy shall provide to McClatchy the ability unreasonably to raise production, servicing, sale and operation of the Acquirer(s) and the United States the Acquirer’s costs, to lower to Acquirer’s the Divestiture Assets, including, but not information relating to the personnel efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the limited to all licenses and sublicenses, involved in the operation of the Divestiture ability of the Acquirer to compete effectively. Assets to enable the Acquirer(s) to make intellectual property, technical information, V. Appointment of Trustee computer software (except defendant’s offers of employment. Defendant McClatchy proprietary software) and related will not interfere with any negotiations by A. If Defendant McClatchy has not divested documentation, know-how, drawings, the Acquirer(s) to employ an employee of the Divestiture Assets within the time period blueprints, designs, specifications for Defendant McClatchy whose primary specified in Section IV(A), Defendant materials, specifications for parts and responsibility relates to the operation of the McClatchy shall notify the United States of devices, quality assurance and control Divestiture Assets. that fact in writing. Upon application of the procedures, all technical manuals and D. Defendant McClatchy shall permit United States, the Court shall appoint a information defendant provide to their own prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture trustee selected by the United States and employees, customers, suppliers, agents or Assets to have reasonable access to personnel approved by the Court to effect the licensees, and all research data relating to the and to make inspections of the physical divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. Pioneer Press. facilities of any and all facilities relating the B. After the appointment of a trustee G. ‘‘Acquirer’’ or ‘‘Acquirers’’ mean the operation of the Pioneer Press; access to any becomes effective, only the trustee shall have entity or entities to whom Defendant and all environmental, zoning, and other the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The McClatchy divest the Divestiture Assets. permit documents and information; and trustees shall have the power and authority access to any and all financial, operational or to accomplish the divestiture to an III. Applicability other documents and information Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States at A. This Final Judgment applies to customarily provided as part of a due such price and on such terms as are then McClatchy and Knight Ridder, as defined diligence process. obtainable upon reasonable effort by the above, and all other persons in active concert E. Defendant McClatchy shall warrant to trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections or participation with any of them who the Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets that IV, V and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall receive actual notice of this Final Judgment the assets will be operational on the date of have such other powers as this Court deems by personal service or otherwise. sale. appropriate. Subjects to Section V(D) of this B. Defendant McClatchy shall require, as a F. Defendant McClatchy shall not take any Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the condition of the sale or other disposition of action that will impede in any way the cost and expense of Defendant McClatchy all or substantially all of their assets or of permitting, operation, or divestiture of the any investment bankers, attorneys, or other lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets. agents, who shall be solely accountable to the Divestiture Assets, that the purchaser(s) G. Defendant McClatchy shall warrant to trustee, reasonably in the trustee’s judgement agree(s) to be bound by the provisions of this the Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets that to assist in the divestiture. Final Judgment. there are no material defects in the C. Defendant McClatchy shall not object to environmental, zoning or other permits a sale by the trustee on any ground other than IV. Divestitures pertaining to the operation of the Assets, and the trustee’s malfeasance. Any such A. Defendant McClatchy is ordered and that following the sale of the Divestiture objections by Defendant McClatchy must be directed to divest the Divestiture Assets in a Assets, Defendant McClatchy will not conveyed in writing to the United States and manner consistent with this Final Judgment undertake, directly or indirectly, any the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after to an Acquirer or Acquirers acceptable to the challenges to the environmental, zoning or the trustee has provided the notice required United States in its sole discretion, before the other permits relating to the operation of the under Section VI. later of (1) sixty (60) calendar days after the Divestiture Assets. D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and filing of the Complaint in this matter or (2) H. Unless the United States otherwise expense of defendant McClatchy, on such five (5) days after notice of the entry of this consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant terms and conditions as the United States Final Judgment by the Court. The United to Section IV, or by trustee appointed approves, and shall account for all monies States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one pursuant to Section V, of this Final derived from the sale of the assets sold by the or more extensions of this time, not to exceed Judgment, shall include the entire Divestiture trustee and all costs and expenses so sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a incurred. After approval by the Court of the notify the Court in such circumstances. way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole trustee’s accounting, including fees for its Defendant McClatchy agrees to use its best discretion, that the Divestiture Assets can services and those of any professionals and effort to divest the Divestiture Assets, and to and will be used by the Acquirer(s) as part agents retained by the trustee, all remaining obtain all regulatory approvals necessary for of a viable, ongoing newspaper publishing money shall be paid to Defendant McClatchy such divestitures, as expeditiously as business. Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets and the trust shall then be terminated. The possible. may be made to one or more Acquirers, compensation of the trustee and any B. In accomplishing the divestiture ordered provided that in each instance it is professionals and agents retained by the by this Final Judgment, Defendant McClatchy demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the promptly shall make known, by usual and United States that the Divestiture Assets will value of the Divestiture Assets and based on customary means, the availability of the remain viable and the divestiture of such a fee arrangement providing the trustee with Divestiture Assets. Defendant McClatchy assets will remedy the competitive harm an incentive based on the price and terms of shall inform any person making inquiry alleged in the Complaint. The divestiture, the divestiture and the speed with which it regarding a possible purchase of the whether pursuant to Section IV or V of this is accomplished, but timeliness is Divestiture Assets that they are being Final Judgment: paramount. divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and 1. Shall be made to an Acquirer or E. Defendant McClatchy shall use its best provide that person with a copy of this Final Acquirers that, in the United State’s sole efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41253

the required divestiture. The trustee and any B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of provide required information to prospective consultants, accountants, attorneys, and receipt by the United States of such notice, purchasers, including the limitations, if any, other persons retained by the trustee shall the United States may request from on such information. Assuming the have full and complete access to the Defendant McClatchy, the proposed information set forth in the affidavit is true personnel, books, records, and facilities Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the and complete, any objection by the United related to the operation of the Pioneer Press trustee if applicable additional information States to information provided by Defendant and Defendant McClatchy shall develop concerning the proposed divestiture, the McClatchy, including limitations on financial and other information relevant to proposed Acquirer(s) and any other potential information, shall be made within fourteen the operation of the Pioneer Press as the Acquirer(s). Defendant McClatchy and the (14) days of receipt of such affidavit. trustee may reasonably request, subject to trustee shall furnish any additional B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the reasonable protection for trade secret or other information requested within fifteen (15) filing of the Complaint in this matter, confidential research, development, or calendar days of the receipt of the request, Defendant McClatchy shall deliver to the commercial information. Defendant unless the parties shall otherwise agree. United States an affidavit that describes in McClatchy shall take no action to interfere C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after reasonable detail all actions Defendant with or to impede the trustee’s receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) McClatchy has taken and all steps Defendant accomplishment of the divestiture. calendar days after the United States has McClatchy has implemented on an ongoing F. After its appointment becomes effective, been provided the additional information basis to comply with Section IV of this Final the trustee shall file monthly reports with the requested from Defendant McClatchy, the Judgment. Defendant McClatchy shall deliver United States and the Court, setting forth the proposed Acquirer(s), any third party and the to the United States an affidavit describing trustee’s efforts to accomplish the divestiture trustee, whichever is later, the United States any changes to the efforts and actions ordered under this Final Judgment. To the shall provide written notice to Defendant outlined in Defendant McClatchy’s earlier extent such reports contain information that McClatchy and the trustee, if there is one, affidavits filed pursuant to this section the trustee deems confidential, such reports stating whether or not it objects to the within fifteen (15) calendar days after the shall not be filed in the public docket of the proposed divestiture. If the United States change is implemented. Court. Such reports shall include the name, provides written notices that it does not C. Defendant McClatchy shall keep all address, and telephone number of each object, the divestiture may be consummated, records of all efforts made to preserve and person who, during the preceding month, subject only to Defendant McClatchy’s divest the Divestiture Assets until one year made an offer to acquire, expressed an limited right to object to the sale under after such divestiture has been completed. interest in acquiring, entered into Section V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent X. Compliance Inspection negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or written notice that the United States does not make an inquiry about acquiring, any interest object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or upon A. For the purposes of determining or in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe objection by the United States, a divestiture securing compliance with this Final in detail each contact with any such person. proposed under Section IV or V shall not be Judgment, or of determining whether the The trustee shall maintain full records of all consummated. Upon objection by Defendant Final Judgment should be modified or efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets. McClatchy under Section V(C), a divestiture vacated, and subject to any legally recognized G. If the trustee has not accomplish such proposed under Section V shall not be privilege, from time to time duly authorized divestiture within four (4) months after its consummated unless approved by the Court. representatives of the United States appointment, the trustee shall promptly file VII. Financing Department of Justice, including consultants with the Court a report setting forth: (1) The and other persons retained by the United Defendant McClatchy shall not finance all trustee’s efforts to accomplish the required States, shall, upon the written request of a or any part of any purchase made pursuant divestiture, (2) the reasons, in the trustee’s duly authorized representative of the to this Final Judgment. judgment, why the required divestiture has Assistant Attorney General in charge of the not been accomplished, and (3) the trustee’s VIII. Hold Separate Order Antitrust Divsion, and on reasonable notice to Defendant McClatchy, be permitted: recommendations. To the extent such reports Until the divestitures required by the Final 1. Access during defendant McClatchy’s contain information that the trustee deems Judgment have been accomplished, confidential, such report shall not be filed in Defendant McClatchy shall take all steps office hours to inspect and copy or, at the public docket of the Court. The trustee at necessary to comply with the Hold Separate plaintiff’s option, to require defendant the same time shall furnish such report to the Stipulation and Order entered by this Court McClatchy to provide copies of, all books, United States, who shall have the right to and to preserve in all material respects the ledgers, accounts, records and documents in make additional recommendations consistent Divestiture Assets. Defendant McClatchy the possession, custody, or control of the with the purpose of the trust. The Court shall take no action that would jeopardize the defendant McClatchy, relating to any matters thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. contained in this Final Judgment; and deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of 2. To interview, either informally or on the this Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, IX. Affidavits record, defendant McClatchy’s officers, include extending the trust and the term of A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the employees, or agents, who may have their the trustee’s appointment by a period filing of the Complaint and every thirty (30) individual counsel present, regarding such requested by the United States. calendar days thereafter until the divestiture matters. The interviews shall be subject to has been completed, whether pursuant to the interviewee’s reasonable convenience VI. Notice of Proposed Divestiture Section IV or V of this Final Judgment, and without restraint or interference by A. Within two (2) business days following Defendant McClatchy shall deliver to the Defendant McClatchy. execution of a definitive divestiture United States an affidavit as to the fact and B. Upon the written request of a duly agreement, Defendant McClatchy or the manner of their compliance with Section IV authorized representative of the Assistant trustee, whichever is then responsible for or V of this Final Judgment. Each such Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust effecting the divestiture required herein, affidavit shall include the name, address, and Division, Defendant McClatchy shall submit shall notify the United States of any telephone number of each person who, such written reports or responses to written proposed divestiture required by Section IV during the preceding thirty (30) days, made interrogatories, under oath if requested, or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in relating to any of the matters contained in responsible, it shall similarly notify acquiring, entered into negotiations to this Final Judgment as may be requested. Defendant McClatchy. The notice shall set acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry C. No information or documents obtained forth the details of the proposed divestiture about acquiring, any interest in the by the means provided in this section shall and list the name, address, and telephone Divestiture Assets and shall describe in detail be divulged by the United States to any number of each person not previously each contact with any such person during person other than an authorized identified who offered or expressed an that period. Each such affidavit shall also representative of the Executive Branch of the interest in or desire to acquire any ownership include a description of the efforts that United States, except in the course of legal interest in the Divestiture Assets, together defendant McClatchy has taken to solicit proceedings to which the United States is a with full details of the same. buyers for the Divestiture Assets and to party (including grand jury proceedings), or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41254 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

for the purpose of securing compliance with Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area in Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required the state of Minnesota and in the sale of modify, or enforce the provisions of the by law. advertising in such newspapers. The merger proposed Final Judgment and to punish D. If, at the time Defendant McClatchy would combine under common ownership violations thereof. furnishes information or documents to the and control the only two local daily United States, Defendant McClatchy newspapers serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul II. The Alleged Violation represents and identifies in writing the metropolitan area in the state of Minnesota A. The Defendants material in any such information or and in the sale of advertising in such McClatchy is a Delaware corporation with documents to which a claim of protection newspapers. The merger would combine its headquarters in Sacramento, California. may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the under common ownership and control the McClatchy publishes twelve (12) daily Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and only two local daily newspapers serving the newspapers throughout the United States. In Defendant McClatchy marks each pertinent Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, the the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, page of such material, ‘‘Subject to claim of Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. McClatchy owns and operates the Star protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal The newly merged firm would have Tribune. McClatchy had revenues of Rules of Civil Procedure,’’ then the United essentially a 100 percent market share (by approximately $1.2 billion during 2005. States shall give defendant McClatchy ten circulation and revenue). As a result, the Knight-Ridder is a Florida corporation with (10) calendar days’ notice prior to divulging combination of these two daily newspapers its headquarters in San Jose, California. such material in any legal proceeding (other would substantially reduce or eliminate Knight-Ridder publishes thirty-two (32) daily than a grand jury proceeding). competition for readers of local daily newspapers throughout the United States. In newspapers and newspaper readers in the the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, XI. No Reacquisition Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area During the term of this Final Judgment, Knight-Ridder owns and operates the St. Paul would be likely to pay higher prices and to Pioneer Press. Knight-Ridder had revenues of Defendant McClatchy may not reacquire any receive lower levels of quality and service. In approximately $3 billion during 2005. part of the Divestiture Assets. addition, the combination of these two daily newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul B. Description of the Events Giving Rise to XII. Retention of Jurisdiction metropolitan area and advertisers would be the Alleged Violation This Court retains jurisdiction to enable likely to pay higher prices and to receive On March 12, 2006, McClatchy and Knight- any party to this Final Judgment to apply to lower levels of quality and service for their Ridder entered into an ‘‘Agreement and Plan this Court at any time for further orders and advertisements. of Merger between The McClatchy Company directions as may be necessary or appropriate The prayer for relief seeks: (a) An and Knight-Ridder, Inc.’’ (‘‘Merger to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, adjudication that the proposed merger Agreement’’). Pursuant to that agreement, (1) to modify any of its provisions, to enforce described in the Complaint would violate Knight-Ridder would merge with and into compliance, and to punish violations of its Section 7 of the Clayton Act; (b) permanent McClatchy; (2) Knight-Ridder would cease to provisions. injunctive relief preventing the exist as a separate corporate entity; and (3) XIII. Expiration of Final Judgment consummation of the transaction; (c) an McClatchy would continue to operate as the award to the plaintiff of the costs of this sole surviving company. As consideration for Unless this Court grants an extension, this action; and (d) such other relief as is proper. the merger, each share of Knight-Ridder Final Judgment shall expire (10) ten years Shortly before this suit was filed, a common stock would be exchanged for cash from the date of its entry. proposed settlement was reached that and stock, for an aggregate transaction value XIV. Public Interest Determination permits McClatchy to complete its merger in excess of $4 billion. with Knight-Ridder, yet preserves For the reasons set forth in the Competitive The Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer competition in the markets in which the Press compete head-to-head in the sale of Impact Statement filed in this case, and made transaction would raise significant available for public comment, entry of this local daily newspapers in the Minneapolis/ competitive concerns. A Stipulation and St. Paul metropolitan area and compete head- Final Judgment is in the public interest and proposed Final Judgment embodying the to-head in the sale of advertising in these the parties have complied with the settlement were filed at the same time the local daily newspapers. They compete for procedures of the Antitrust Procedures and Complaint was filed. readers so that they can better compete for Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16. The proposed Final Judgment, which is advertisers. The proposed merger, and the Court Approval Subject to Procedures of explained more fully below, requires threatened loss of competition that would be Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 McClatchy and Knight-Ridder to divest the caused by it, precipitated the government’s U.S.C. 16. St. Paul Pioneer Press to acquirer(s) suit. Dated: lllllllllllllllll acceptable to the United States. Unless the United States grants a time extension, the C. Anticompetitive Consequences of the lllllllllllllllllllll Proposed Transaction United States District Judge divestiture must be completed within sixty (60) calendar days after the filing of the 1. Relevant Market Competitive Impact Statemnt Complaint in this matter or five (5) calender A. Product Market. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff, the United States of America days after notice of the entry of this Final that the sale of local daily newspapers to (‘‘United States’’ or ‘‘Plaintiff’’ or Judgment by the Court, whichever is later. readers and the sale of access to those readers ‘‘government’’), pursuant to Section 2(b) of If the divestitures are not completed within to advertisers in such newspapers each the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act the divestiture period, the Court, upon constitutes a line of commerce within the (‘‘APPA’’), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), files this application of the United States, is to appoint meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Competitive Impact Statement relating to the trustee selected by the United States to sell From a reader’s standpoint, the news stories proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry the assets. The proposed Final Judgment also in local daily newspapers, such as the Star in this civil antitrust proceeding. requires that, until the divestitures mandated Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, differ by the Final Judgment have been significantly from other sources of news. The I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding accomplished, the defendants must maintain news stories are detailed, as compared to the Plaintiff the United States filed a civil and operate the St. Paul Pioneer Press as an news as reported by radio or television, and antitrust Complaint on June 26, 2006, active competitor, maintain the management, the Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer alleging that a proposed merger of The staffing, sales, and marketing of St. Pioneer Press cover a wide range of stories of interest McClatchy Company (‘‘McClatchy’’) and Pioneer Press and fully maintain the St. Paul to local readers, not just major news Knight-Ridder, Incorporated (‘‘Knight- Pioneer Press in operable condition. highlights. Newspapers, such as the Star Ridder’’) would violate Section 7 of the The plaintiff and the defendants have Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, are Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The Complaint stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment portable and allow the reader to read the alleges that McClatchy and Knight-Ridder are may be entered after compliance with the news, advertisements, and other information each other’s primary competitor in the sale APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment at his or her own convenience. Readers also of local daily newspapers to readers in the would terminate this action, except that the value other features of the Star Tribune and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41255

the St. Paul Pioneer Press, such as calendars local daily newspapers serving areas outside metropolitan area, competing aggressively for of local events and meetings, movie and TV of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area the business of advertisers in that area. Their listings, classified advertisements, are not acceptable substitutes for the Star head-to-head competition has been commercial advertisements, legal notices, Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. If the instrumental in giving advertisers in the comics, syndicated columns, and obituaries. merged firm were to impose a small but Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area Reader of the Star Tribune and the St. Paul significant and nontransitory increase in the higher quality advertising better service, and Pioneer Press do not consider weekly price of local daily newspapers serving the lower prices. A combination of these two newspapers, radio news, television news, or Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, it newspapers under common ownership and Internet news to be adequate substitutes for would lose too few sales to make the price control would substantially reduce or local daily newspapers. If the merged firm increase unprofitable. eliminate that competition. were to impose a small but significant and 2. Competitive Effects The proposed transaction would create nontransitory increase in the price of further market concentration in an already advertisements in local daily newspapers, it A. Harm to Readers. The Complaint alleges concentrated market for advertising in local would lose too few sales to make the price that, in the Minneapolis/St. Paul daily newspapers. If the two papers combine increase unprofitable. metropolitan area, the merger of McClatchy under common ownership and control, the From an advertiser’s standpoint, there is no and Knight-Ridder would lessen competition combined city would control virtually 100 alternative to purchasing advertisements substantially and tend to create a monopoly percent of the sales of advertisements in local from local daily papers. Advertising in the in market for local daily newspapers. The daily newspapers serving the Minneapolis/ Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press St. Paul metropolitan area. Prior to the allows advertisers to reach a broad cross- are each other’s primary competitor in the merger, the Star Tribune generated $308 section of consumers in the Minneapolis/St. sale of local daily newspapers in the million, or approximately 68 percent, in total Paul metropolitan area with a detailed Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, local daily newspaper advertising revenues. message in a timely manner. A substantial competing aggressively for readers. Their The St. Paul Pioneer Press generated $140 portion of defendants’ advertisers do not head-to-head competition has given readers million, or approximately 32 percent, in tota1 consider other types of advertising, such as in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan local daily newspaper advertising revenues. advertising in weekly newspapers, on radio, area higher quality news coverage, better The vast majority of these advertising service, and lower prices. A combination of on television, or on the Internet as adequate revenues come from advertisers seeking to these two newspapers under common substitutes for advertising in a local daily reach readers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul ownership and control would substantially newspaper. In the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. reduce or eliminate that competition and metropolitan area, the Star Tribune and the The proposed Final Judgment would leave would decrease incentives of the merged firm St. Paul Pioneer Press provide advertisers the the merged firm in control of the Star to maintain high levels of quality and service. best vehicle to advertise the price of their Tribune, but not the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The proposed transaction would create goods or services in a timely manner. If the As a result readers will not be harmed as the further market concentration in an already merged firm were to impose a small but separate owners of the Star Tribune and the concentrated market for local daily significant and nontransitory increase in the St. Paul Pioneer Press will still have an newspapers. The merged firm would control economic incentive to compete against each price of advertising in local daily the only two daily local newspapers in the newspapers, it would lose too few sales to other and capture the other company readers Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, the by offering lower prices and a better product. make the price increase unprofitable. Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, B. Geographic Market. The Complaint In addition, advertisers will not be harmed as with a market share position of almost 100 the separate owners of the Star Tribune and alleges that the Minneapolis/St. Paul percent, as measured by local daily metropolitan area in the state of Minnesota the St. Paul Pioneer Press will still have an newspaper circulation. Prior to the merger, economic incentive to compete against each is a section of the country, or a relevant the Star Tribune had the highest market share geographic market, within the meaning of other for additional advertising dollars by in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan offering lower rates, discounts off the rate Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The Star area, with approximately 72 percent of Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press are cards, and better service. The proposed Final readers. The only other local daily Judgment will preserve the premerger both produced, published, and distributed in newspaper competitor of the merged firm in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. competitive situation in which readers and the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, advertisers have two local daily newspapers The Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer the Stillwater Gazette, had a market share of Press target readers in the Minneapolis/St. in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan less than one percent of readers. According area from which to choose. Paul metropolitan area. Both papers provide to the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’), news relating to the Minneapolis/St. Paul a widely-used measure of market 3. Entry metropolitan area in addition to state and concentration defined and explained in Entry by local daily newspapers in the national news. Together, the Star Tribune Exhibit A, the combination of the Star Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is and the St. Paul Pioneer Press generate Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press under time-consuming and difficult, and is not approximately 80 percent of their total common ownership and control would create likely to eliminate the anticompetitive effects circulation from the Minneapolis/St. Paul a monopoly and yield a post-merger HHI of of the merger by constraining the market metropolitan area. approximately 9,900, representing an power of the combined entity in the near- Local daily newspapers that serve areas increase of roughly 4,488 points for daily term, or in the foreseeable future. Local daily outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul circulation. For Sunday circulation, at the newspapers incur significant fixed costs, metropolitan area do not provide local news combination of the Star Tribune and the St. many of which are sunk. Examples of these specific to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Paul Pioneer Press would yield an HHI of sunk costs include hiring reporters and metropolitan area. From a readers’s approximately 10,000, an increase of roughly editors, news gathering, and marketing the standpoint, local daily newspapers serving 4,050 points. very existence of the new paper, all of which areas outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul B. Harm to Advertisers. The Complaint also take substantial time. In the event that the metropolitan area are not acceptable alleges that, in the Minneapolis/St. Paul entrant fails or exists the newspaper substitutes for the Star Tribune and the St. metropolitan area, the merger of McClatchy industry, it cannot recover these sunk costs, Paul Pioneer Press. If the merged firm were and Knight would lessen competition making entry risky and likely unprofitable. to impose a small but significant and substantially and tend to create a monopoly As a result, entry will not be timely, likely, nontransitory increase in the price of local in the market for advertising in local daily or sufficient to eliminate the competitive daily newspapers serving the Minneapolis/ newspapers. The Star Tribune and the St. harm that would likely result from the St. Paul metropolitan area, it would lose too Paul Pioneer Press are each other’s primary proposed merger. few sales to make the price increase competitor in the sale of advertising in local unprofitable. daily newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul 4. Violation Alleged From the standpoint of an advertiser metropolitan area, the create a monopoly in For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has selling goods or services in the Minneapolis/ the market for advertising local daily concluded that the proposed transaction St. Paul metropolitan area, advertising in newspapers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul would lessen competition substantially in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41256 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

sale of local daily newspapers to readers and divestitures, (2) the reasons, in the trustee’s will preserve competition in the sale of local in the sale of advertising in such newspapers judgment, why the required divestitures have daily newspapers to readers and in the sale serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul not been accomplished and (3) the trustee’s of advertising in such newspapers serving the metropolitan area, and likely result in recommendations. At the same time the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area as increased prices and lower service and trustee will furnish such report to the identified in the Complaint. quality for readers and advertisers. The plaintiff and defendants, who will each have proposed merger therefore violates of Section the right to be heard and to make additional 7. Standard of Review Under the APPA for 7 of the Clayton Act. recommendations. Proposed Final Judgment The APPA requires that proposed consent 4. Remedies Available to Potential Private 3. Explanation of the Proposed Final judgments in antitrust cases by the United Litigants Judgment States be subject to a sixty (60) day comment The proposed Final Judgment would Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, period, after which the Court shall determine preserve existing competition in the sale of provides that any person who has been whether entry of the proposed Final local daily newspapers to readers and in the injured as a result of conduct prohibited by Judgment ‘‘is in the public interest.’’ In sale of advertising in such newspapers the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal making that determination, the Court shall serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul court to recover three times the damages the consider: metropolitan area. It requires the divestiture person has suffered, as well as costs and (A) The competitive impact of such of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The divestiture reasonable attorneys’ fees. Entry of the judgment, including termination of alleged will preserve choices for read less likely that proposed Final Judgment will neither impair violations, provisions for enforcement and in the relevant market (1) prices will increase nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust modification, duration or relief sought, for readers, (2) prices will increase for damage action. Under the provisions of anticipated effects of alternative remedies advertisers, (3) the quality of the local daily Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. actually considered and any other newspapers will decline or (4) service levels 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no considerations bearing upon the adequacy of will decline as a result of the transaction. prima facie effect in any subsequent private such judgment; Unless the United States grants an lawsuit that may be brought against (B) The impact of entry of such judgment extension of time, the divestiture must be defendants. upon the public generally and individuals completed within sixty (60) calendar days 5. Procedures Available for Modification of alleging specific injury from the violations after the filing of the Complaint in this matter the Proposed Final Judgment set forth in the complaint including or five (5) calender days after notice of the consideration of the public bene t, if any, to Plaintiff and defendants have stipulated entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, be derived from a determination of the issues that the proposed Final Judgment may be whichever is later. Until the divestiture takes at trial. place, McClatchy must maintain and operate entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(l)(A) & (B). As the United the St. Paul Pioneer Press as an active states Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit competitor to the Star Tribune, maintain the plaintiff has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court’s held, this statute permits a court to consider, management, staffing, sales, and marketing of determination that the proposed Final among other things, the relationship between the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and fully maintain Judgment is in the public interest. the remedy secured and the specific St. Paul Pioneer Press in operable condition. The APPA provides a period of at least allegations set forth in the government’s The divestiture must be to a purchaser or sixty (60) days preceding the effective date of complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently purchasers acceptable to the United States in the proposed Final Judgment within which clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are its sole discretion. Unless the United States any person may submit to plaintiff written sufficient and whether the decree may otherwise consents in writing, the divestiture comments regarding the proposed Final positively harm third parties. See United shall include all the assets of the St. Paul Judgment. Any person who wishes to States v. Microsoft, S6 F.3d 1448, 1461–62 Pioneer Press, and shall be accomplished in comment should do so within sixty (60) days (D.C. Cir. 1995). such a way as to satisfy the United States that of the date of publication of this Competitive ‘‘Nothing in this section shall be construed such assets can and will be used as a viable Impact Statement in the Federal Register. All to require the court to conduct an evidentiary local daily newspaper. comments received during this period will be hearing or to require the court to permit If Defendant McClatchy fails to divest the considered by the Department of Justice, anyone to intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). St. Paul Pioneer Press within the time which remains free to withdraw its consent Thus, in conducting this inquiry, ‘‘[t]he Court periods specified in the Final Judgment, the to the proposed Final Judgment at any time is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to Court, upon, application of the United States, prior to the Court’s entry of judgment. The engage in extended proceedings which might is to appoint a trustee nominated by the comments and the response of plaintiff will have the effect of vitiating the benefits of United States to effect the divestitures. If a be filed with the Court and published in the prompt and less costly settlement through trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Federal Register. the consent decree process.’’ 1 Rather, Judgment provides that McClatchy will pay Written comments should be submitted to: [a]bsent a showing of corrupt failure of the all costs and expenses of the trustee and any John R. Read, Chief, Litigation III, Antitrust government to discharge its duty, the Court, professionals and agents retained by the Division, United States Department of in making its public interest finding, should trustee. Under Section V(d) of the propose JustIce, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300, * * * carefully consider the explanations of Final Judgment, the compensation paid to the Washington, DC 20530. the government in the competitive impact trustee and any persons retained by the The proposed Final Judgment provides that statement and its responses to comments in trustee shall be both reasonable in light of the the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, order to determine whether those value of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and based and the parties may apply to the Court for explanations are reasonable under the on a fee arrangement providing the trustee any order necessary or appropriate for the circumstances. with an incentive based on the price and modification, interpretation, or enforcement terms of the divestitures and the speed with of the Final Judgment. 1 119 Congo Rec. 24598 (1973) (statement of which they are accomplished. Timeliness is 6. Alternatives to the Proposed Final Senator Tunney). See United States v. Gillette Co., paramount. After appointment, the trustee 406 F. Supp. 713, 715 (D. Mass. 1975). A ‘‘public will file monthly reports with the parties and Judgment interest’’ determination can be made properly on the Court, setting forth the trustee’s efforts to Plaintiff considered, as an alternative to the the basis of the Competitive Impact Statement and accomplish the divestitures ordered under proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the Response to Comments filed pursuant to the APPA. the proposed Final Judgment. Section V(g) of merits against Defendants. Plaintiff could Although the APPA authorizes the use of additional the proposed Final Judgment provides that if have continued the litigation and sought procedures, 15 U.S.C. § 16(f), those procedures are the trustee has not accomplished the discretionary. A court need not invoke any of them preliminary and permanent injunctions unless it believes that the comments have raised divestitures within four (4) months after its against McClatchy’s acquisition of Knight- significant issues and that further proceedings appointment, the trustee shall promptly file Ridder. Plaintiff is satisfied, however, that would aid the court in resolving those issues. See with the Court a report setting forth (1) the the divestiture of assets and other relief H.R. Rep. 93–1463, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess. 8–9 (1974), trustee’s efforts to accomplish the required described in the proposed Final Judgment reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 6535, 6538.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41257

United States v. Mid-America Dairymen. Inc., VIII. Determinative Document Hong Kong KONKA Ltd., Hong Kong, 977–1 Trade Cas. ¶ 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. There are no determinative materials or Hong Kong-China; Kawai Musical Mo. 1977). documents within the meaning of the APPA Instruments Mfg. Co., Ltd., Shizuoka, Accordingly, with respect to the adequacy that were considered by the plaintiff in Japan; Shenzhen Mizuda AV Co., Ltd., of the relief secured by the decree, a court formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China; may not ‘‘engage in an unrestricted Dated: June 27, 2006. Teltron S.A.,Buenos Aires, Argentina; evaluation of what relief would best serve the Respectfully submitted, public.’’ United States v. BNS. Inc., 858 F.2d and Toyo Recording Co., Ltd., Tokyo, 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988), citing United States Gregg I. Malawer (D.C. Bar #481685), U.S. Japan have been added as parties to this v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir.), Department of Justice Antitrust Division, 325 venture. cert. denied, 454 U.S. 11083 (1981); see also 7th Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC Also, CIS Technology, Inc., Taipei 20530, (202) 514–0230, Attorney for Plaintiff Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460–62. Precedent Hsien, Taiwan; and Encentrus Systems the United States. requires that: Inc., Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada have The balancing of competing social and Exhibit A—Definition of HHI and withdrawn as parties to this venture. In political interests affected by a proposed Calculations for Market addition, Favor Digital Technology Co., antitrust consent decree must be left, in the ‘‘HHI’’ means the Herfindahl-Hirschm Ltd. has changed its name to Major first instance, to the discretion of the Index, a commonly accepted measure of Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Jiang Xi, Attorney General. The court’s role in market concentration. It is calculated by People’s Republic of China. protecting the public interest is one of squaring the market share of each firm No other changes have been made to insuring that the government has not competing in the market and then summing either the membership or planned breached its duty to the public in consenting the resulting numbers. For example, for a to the decree. The court is required to market consisting of four firms with shares of activity of the group research project. determine not whether a particular decree is thirty, thirty, twenty and twenty percent, the Membership in this group research the one that will best serve society, but HHI is 2600 (302 + 302 + 202 + 202 = 2600). project remains open, and DVD CCA whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reach The HHI takes into account the relative size intends to file additional written of the public interest.’’ More elaborate and distribution of the firms in a market and notification disclosing all changes in requirements might undermine the approaches zero when a market consists of a membership. effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by large number of firms of relatively equal size. On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its consent decree.2 The HHI increases both as the number of original notification pursuant to Section firms in the market decreases and as the Bechtel, 648 F .2d at 666 (citations omitted) disparity in size between those firms 6(a) of the Act. The Department of (emphasis added). increases. Justice published a notice in the Federal Court approval of a final judgment requires Markets in which the HHI is between 1000 Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the a standard more flexible and less strict than and 1800 points are considered to be Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727). the standard required for a finding of moderately concentrated, and those in which The last notification was filed with liability. ‘‘[A] proposed decree must be the HHI is in excess of 1800 points are the Department on March 16, 2006. A approved even if it falls short of the remedy considered to be concentrated. Transactions notice was published in the Federal the court would impose on its own, as long that increase the HHI by more than 100 Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the points in concentrated markets as it falls within the range of acceptability or Act on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18769). is ‘within the reaches of public interest.’’’ presumptively raise antitrust concerns under United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., the Merger Guidelines. See Merger Dorothy B. Fountain, Guidelines § 1.51. 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d. Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. [FR Doc. 06–6362 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Division. 1001 (1983), quoting Gillette Co., 406 F. BILLING CODE 4410–11–M [FR Doc. 06–6359 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Supp. at 716 (citations omitted); United BILLING CODE 4410–11–M States v. Alcan Aluminum, Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985). Moreover, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Court’s role under the APPA is limited to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE reviewing the remedy in relationship to the Antitrust Division violations that the United States has alleged Antitrust Division in its Complaint, and does not authorize the Notice Pursuant to the National Court to ‘‘construct [its] own hypothetical Cooperative Research and Production Notice Pursuant to the National case and then evaluate the decree against that Act of 1993—DVD Copy Control Cooperative Research and Production case.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459. Because the ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree Association Act of 1993—Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc. depends entirely on the government’s Notice is hereby given that, on June exercising its prosecutorial discretion by 22, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Notice is hereby given that, on June bringing a case in the first place,’’ it follows National Cooperative Research and 20, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the that ‘‘the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 National Cooperative Research and redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into other et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), DVD Copy Control Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 matters that the United States did not pursue. Association (‘‘DVD CCA’’) has filed et seq. (‘‘Act’’), Network Centric Id. at 1459–60. written notifications simultaneously Operations Industry Consortium, Inc. with the Attorney General and the has filed written notifications 2 Cf. BNS. 858 F.2d at 464; 858 F.2d at 64 (bolding Federal Trade Commission disclosing simultaneously with the Attorney that the court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APP changes in its membership. The General and the Federal Trade A] is limited to approving or disapproving the notifications were filed for the purpose Commission disclosing changes in its consent decree’’); Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716 (noting that, in this way, the court s constrained to of extending the Act’s provisions membership. The notifications were ‘‘look at the overall picture not hypercritically, nor limiting the recovery of antitrust filed for the purpose of extending the with a microscope, but with artist’s reducing plaintiffs to actual damages under Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of glass’’); see generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 specified circumstances. Specifically, antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages (discussing whether ’the remedies [obtained in the decree are) so inconsonant with the allegations BeyondWiz Co., Ltd., Seongnam, under specified circumstances. charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the Republic of Korea; CD Video Specifically, American Red Cross, public interest’’’). Manufacturing, Inc., Santa Ana, CA; Washington, DC; Open Geospatial

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41258 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Consortium, Inc., Wayland, MA; and Sept Europe, Munich, Germany agreement with the FHWA, is Management and Engineering have been added as parties to this responsible for carrying out the neutral Technologies International, Inc., El venture. conflict assessment process. This notice Paso, TX; Gallium Software Inc., No other changes have been made in describes the first of several Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and SPARTA, either the membership or planned opportunities for public participation in Inc., Arlington, VA have been added as activity of the group research project. the assessment process. At this time, the parties to this venture. Also, West Membership in this group research public is invited to identify any OAC Virginia High Technology Consortium project remains open, and issues that should be considered during Foundation, Fairmont, WV; MBL Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. the assessment. The public also is International, Ltd., Annandale, VA; intends to file additional written invited to suggest persons or entities Crystal Group, Inc., Hiawatha, IA; and notification disclosing all changes in with particular interests or expertise in FlightSafety International, Flushing, NY membership. outdoor advertising and the OAC have withdrawn as parties to this On May 27, 2003, Semiconductor Test program, that the assessors should venture. Consortium, Inc. filed its original consider contacting as a part of the No other changes have been made in notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of assessment proceedings. either the membership or planned the Act. The Department of Justice DATES: Comments must be received on activity of the group research project. published a notice in the Federal or before August 21, 2006. Membership in this group research Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the ADDRESSES: project remains open, and Network Act on June 17, 2003 (68 FR 35913). Centric Operations Industry The last notification was filed with Comments on OAC Issues Consortium, Inc. intends to file the Department on February 21, 2006. A Mail or hand deliver comments about additional written notification notice was published in the Federal OAC issues that should be considered in disclosing all changes in membership. Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the the assessment to the U.S. Department On November 19, 2004, Network Act on March 7, 2006 (71 FR 13866). Centric Operations Industry of Transportation, Dockets Management Consortium, Inc. filed its original Dorothy B. Fountain, Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or the Act. The Department of Justice Division. submit electronically at http:// published a notice in the Federal [FR Doc. 06–6358 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] dms.dot.gov or fax comments to (202) 493–2251. All comments should include Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the BILLING CODE 4410–11–M Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486). the docket number that appears in the The last notification was filed with heading of this document. the Department on April 10, 2006. A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION All comments received will be notice was published in the Federal available for examination and copying Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Federal Highway Administration at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 Act on May 10, 2006 (71 FR 27280). p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP except Federal holidays. Those desiring Dorothy B. Fountain, AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL notification of receipt of comments must Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY include a self-addressed, stamped Division. FOUNDATION postcard or may print the [FR Doc. 06–6360 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] acknowledgement page that appears [Docket No. FHWA–2006–25031] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M after submitting comments U.S. Institute for Environmental electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Conflict Resolution; Request for Public Participation in National Outdoor received into any of DOT’s dockets by the name of the individual submitting Antitrust Division Advertising Control Program Assessment the comment (or signing the comment, Notice Pursuant to the National if submitted on behalf of an association, Cooperative Research and Production AGENCIES: Federal Highway business, labor union, etc.) Administration (FHWA), DOT and Act of 1993—Semiconductor Test Names of Persons or Entities To Be United States Institute for Consortium, Inc. Contacted as Part of the Assessment Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Notice is hereby given that, on May Institute). Mail or hand deliver suggested names 10, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the ACTION: Notice; request for public input of persons or entities to be contacted as National Cooperative Research and on program assessment. part of the assessment to the Morris K. Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 Udall Foundation, U.S. Institute for et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Semiconductor Test SUMMARY: The FHWA and the U.S. Environmental Conflict Resolution, attn: Consortium, Inc. has filed written Institute have initiated an assessment of Ms. Gail Brooks, 130 South Scott notifications simultaneously with the the national outdoor advertising control Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701, or submit Attorney General and the Federal Trade (OAC) program, which implements the electronically by e-mail to [email protected], Commission disclosing changes in its provisions of 23 U.S.C. 131. The goal of or fax to (510) 670–5530. Contact membership. The notifications were the assessment is to reach out, through information for such persons or entities, filed for the purpose of extending the a neutral entity, to parties interested in if available to the submitter, should be Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of OAC to identify issues that cause included in the submission. antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages controversy, perspectives of the various Names and contact information for under specified circumstances. stakeholders, and appropriate methods such persons or entities should be Specifically, BitifEye, Boeblingen, for addressing conflicts and improving provided only to the U.S. Institute as Germany; ERS Electronic, Munich, program results. The U.S. Institute, directed above in order to protect the Germany; Q-Star Test, Brugge, Belgium; operating under an interagency privacy of the persons or entities

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41259

suggested. Do not include name and In 1965, Congress passed the Highway raise questions about the effectiveness contact information with comments Beautification Act (HBA), 23 U.S.C. 131, of the current national OAC program. about OAC issues to be filed with the which substantially amended the The FHWA wishes to better DOT Document Management Facility. original law and today governs the understand the nature and complexity Persons making comments may review Federal outdoor advertising control of the conflicts that have developed in DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement program. Unlike the Bonus Program, connection with the HBA, and what in the Federal Register published April States are required to comply with the paths toward resolution are available. 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages HBA. The first section of the HBA sets The FHWA requested assistance with 19477–78), or may visit http:// forth the basic program objectives: ‘‘The this effort from the U.S. Institute, which dms.dot.gov. erection and maintenance of outdoor specializes in environmental conflict advertising signs, displays, and devices assessment and resolution. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For in areas adjacent to the Interstate In accordance with its statutory the FHWA: Mr. Gerald Solomon, Office System and the primary system should authority, the 1998 Environmental of Real Estate Services (HEPR), (202) be controlled in order to protect the Policy and Conflict Resolution Act (Pub. 366–2019, [email protected]; for public investment in such highways, to L. 105–156, codified at 20 U.S.C. 5601 legal questions, Mr. Robert Black, Office promote the safety and recreational et seq.), the U.S. Institute will conduct of Chief Counsel (HCC), (202) 366–1359, value of public travel, and to preserve a comprehensive and neutral conflict [email protected]; Federal Highway natural beauty.’’ The FHWA assessment of the OAC program. The Administration, 400 Seventh Street, promulgated regulations in 1973, which U.S. Institute will serve an independent SW., Washington, DC 20590. For the appear in parts 180 and 750 of title 23, and impartial role, accountable to all the U.S. Institute: Dale Keyes, Senior Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Most interested parties and participants. Program Manager, [email protected], (520) provisions of the HBA and the Confidentiality of all private 670–5653 or Gail Brooks, Program regulations have remained largely conversations will be protected. The Associate, [email protected], (520) 670– unchanged since their original adoption. U.S. Institute will oversee the 5299; U.S. Institute for Environmental Under the HBA, States are responsible assessment process, and has contracted Conflict Resolution, 130 South Scott for implementing the OAC program in a with the Osprey Group, a private Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85701. Business manner consistent with the Federal law conflict resolution company, to gather hours for the Federal Highway and regulations. Failure by a State to information and conduct other aspects Administration are 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 maintain effective control can result in of the assessment, and to prepare the p.m. (e.t.), Monday through Friday, the withholding of a portion of the assessment report. For more information except Federal holidays. State’s Federal-aid highway funds. Most on the U.S. Institute, please visit SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: States have assigned administrative http://www.ecr.gov. The goal of the OAC program neutral Electronic Access responsibility for OAC to their transportation agencies. conflict assessment is to identify areas You may submit or retrieve comments The HBA requires States to develop of conflict, stakeholders affected by or online through the Docket Management standards governing various aspects of interested in the issues, the System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov/ the program, and mandates stakeholders’ positions and proposed submit. The DMS is available 24 hours compensation to sign owners when a solutions, and their willingness to each day, 365 days a year. Electronic State’s action in removing a sign engage in efforts to address and resolve submission and retrieval help and constitutes a regulatory taking. Pursuant the issues. The assessment will be guidelines are available under the help to the HBA, there are areas in which accomplished through discussions with section of the Web site. signs can be legally erected, areas where key stakeholders (individually or in An electronic copy of this notice may they cannot be erected, and limitations groups) and public listening sessions. be downloaded using a computer, on the size, lighting, and spacing of The assessment report prepared by modem and suitable communications signs. Signs erected legally prior to the the U.S. Institute and the Osprey Group software from the Government Printing adoption of the regulatory controls with will convey findings and identify Office’s Electronic Bulletin Board which they do not conform were given options for future action, including Service at (202) 512–1661. Internet users limited ‘‘grandfathering’’ protection as whether a future collaborative problem- may reach the Office of the Federal non-conforming signs. The law solving process would be appropriate. Register’s home page at http:// affirmatively requires States to remove The final product will contain a set of www.archives.gov and the Government illegal signs, which do not comply with recommendations from the assessors for Printing Office’s Web site at http:// applicable laws and regulations and are actions by the FHWA and others to www.access.gpo.gov. not grandfathered. address OAC program conflicts. After Since the adoption of the HBA and the U.S. Institute submits its assessment Background the implementing regulations, there report, the FHWA will place a copy of The U.S. Congress adopted the first have been substantial changes in the report in the docket. Additionally, Federal legislation pertaining to the relevant practices, technologies, and the FHWA will announce in the Federal control of outdoor advertising signs local conditions. As a result, many of Register availability of this report and (signs) near Federal-aid highways in the those affected by the OAC program see ask for public comments on the report. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958. That an increasing gap between current The OAC program assessment process legislation established the voluntary Federal law and regulations and the will offer public participation Bonus Program to control outdoor needs of States, local communities, opportunities in several ways. The first advertising signs within 660 feet of the advertisers, sign owners, owners of is this request for public comments Interstate System. The Bonus Program properties on which signs are located, about which issues the assessment provided a monetary incentive to the interest groups, and the traveling public. should consider and who should be States to adopt programs that controlled Enforcement of Federal and State laws, considered for inclusion in discussion outdoor advertising in accordance with and the interface between OAC and activities. There also will be public national standards specified in the local zoning laws, create challenges listening sessions in several cities legislation. across the country. These difficulties around the country, at which any

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41260 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

member of the public may attend and amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et address or telephone number indicated provide information. An announcement seq.), the Council on Environmental below. The Draft EA is also available at of the dates, times, and locations of Quality Regulations for Implementing http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/ those sessions will be posted in the the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 cev_draftea.html. docket, available as described above. CFR parts 1500–1508), and NASA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: After consideration of the assessment policy and procedures (14 CFR part report and public comments on it, the 1216 subpart 1216.3), NASA has Mario Busacca, Mail Stop: TA–C3, Lead, FHWA will file in the same docket a prepared and issued a Draft EA for the Planning and Special Projects summary of its review of the results of Development of the CEV. The Proposed Environmental Program Office, NASA, the OAC program neutral conflict Action is to develop a new human-rated Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899; assessment. space vehicle, the CEV, which would be telephone 321–867–8456, electronic Information on the FHWA OAC the U.S. vehicle to transport humans to mail [email protected], or program is available online at http:// Low-Earth Orbit and to the International facsimile 321–867–8040. www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/ Space Station, Moon, Mars, and to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In his out_ad.htm or by contacting the FHWA destinations beyond. The Draft EA January 14, 2004 address to the Nation, at the address listed above. Additional addresses the potential environmental President George W. Bush announced a OAC resources include: National impacts associated with the new vision for space exploration. In Alliance of Highway Beautification development of the CEV, including its pursuing this new vision, NASA has Agencies, http://www.nahba.org/; design, component fabrication, and been tasked with developing the Outdoor Advertising Association of assembly. However, it does not cover spacecraft, launch vehicles, and related America, http://www.oaaa.org; and flight testing and operation of the CEV, technologies necessary to travel and Scenic America, http://www.scenic. which will be the subject of future explore the solar system. The CEV org/. NEPA documentation. The only represents an important building block Comments received after the comment alternative to the Proposed Action in this future exploration architecture. closing date will be filed in the docket discussed in detail is the No Action The CEV, an Apollo-like capsule, and will be considered to the extent Alternative where NASA would not would consist of a Crew Module, a practicable. In addition to late develop the CEV. Service Module, and a Launch Escape comments, the FHWA also will The CEV would be able to transport System. If NASA proceeds with CEV continue to file in the docket relevant up to six humans and cargo to space development, the Agency would information that becomes available after after the Space Shuttle is retired, which contract with a commercial firm to serve the closing date, and interested persons is currently scheduled to occur no later as the prime contractor, with specific should continue to examine the docket than 2010. First human flight involving design, component fabrication, and for new material. Names of persons or the CEV is planned for no later than assembly activities to be clarified as the entities that the assessors should 2014 with initial access to Low-Earth CEV Project matures. CEV development consider contacting as part of the Orbit and to the International Space activities would occur at multiple assessment that are received by the U.S. Station. Human missions to the Moon NASA facilities including, but not Institute after the comment closing date are planned for no later than 2020 with necessarily limited to, Johnson Space also will be considered to the extent missions to Mars and other destinations Center in Houston, Texas; Ames practicable. in the following decades. The CEV Research Center in Mountain View, (Authority: 23 U.S.C. 131; 20 U.S.C. 5601 et would likely be launched from NASA’s California; Marshall Space Flight Center seq.) Kennedy Space Center in Florida. in Huntsville, Alabama; Glenn Research Issued on: July 13, 2006. DATES: Written comments on the Draft Center in Cleveland, Ohio; Langley Christopher L. Helms, EA must be received by NASA on or Research Center in Hampton, Virginia; Executive Director, Morris K. Udall before August 21, 2006. and Kennedy Space Center; and at yet Scholarship and Excellence in National ADDRESSES: Written comments should to be named commercial facilities Environmental Policy Foundation. be addressed to Mr. Mario Busacca, Mail throughout the United States. These Frederick G. Wright, Jr., Stop: TA–C3, Lead, Planning and activities would be expected to be Federal Highway Executive Director. Special Projects, Environmental consistent with each facility’s mission statement and scope of normal [FR Doc. 06–6355 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Program Office, NASA, Kennedy Space operations. BILLING CODE 4910–22–P Center, FL 32899. Although hardcopy comments are preferred, comments may Environmental impacts associated be sent by electronic mail to Mario with the development of the CEV would NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND Busacca at [email protected] be expected to be minor (i.e., within the SPACE ADMINISTRATION or by facsimile at 321–867–8040. permitted quantities of airborne The Draft EA can be reviewed at the emissions, waterborne effluents, and [Notice 06–046] following NASA locations: waste disposal at each of the involved (a) NASA Headquarters, Library, facilities) and consequently both the National Environmental Policy Act; Room 1J20, 300 E Street, SW., short- and long-term environmental Crew Exploration Vehicle Washington, DC 20546–0001; impacts are expected to be within the AGENCY: National Aeronautics and (b) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Visitors limits of all applicable environmental Space Administration (NASA). Lobby, Building 249, 4800 Oak Grove statutes, regulations, permits, and ACTION: Notice of availability of the Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109. licenses. No adverse impact on the local Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Hard copies of the Draft EA also may infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roadways) for the Development of the Crew be reviewed at other NASA Centers (see near the involved facilities is Exploration Vehicle (CEV). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below). anticipated. There should be little Limited hard copies of the Draft EA incremental impact on employment SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National are available, on a first request basis, by levels at the facilities involved in CEV Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as contacting Mr. Mario Busacca at the development. Thus little or no

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:14 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41261

incremental socioeconomic impacts to Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 and engaged citizenry. IMLS builds the regional economies are anticipated. U.S.C. 3508(s)(A)]. This program helps capacities of libraries and museums by The Draft EA may be examined at the to ensure that requested data can be encouraging the highest standards in following NASA locations by contacting provided in the desired format, management, public service, and the pertinent Freedom of Information reporting burden (time and financial education; leadership in the use of Office: resources) is minimized, collection technology; strategic planning for (a) NASA, Ames Research Center, instruments are clearly understood, and results, and partnerships to create new Moffett Field, CA 94035 (650–604– the impact of collection requirements on networks that support lifelong learning 3273); respondents can be properly assessed. and the effective management of assets. (b) NASA, Dryden Flight Research The Institute of Museum and Library According to its strategic plan, IMLS is Center, Edwards, CA 93523 (661–276– Services is currently soliciting dedicated to creating and sustaining a 2704); comments concerning proposed nation of learners by helping libraries (c) NASA, Glenn Research Center, evaluation research of Partnership for a and museums serve their communities. Cleveland, OH 44135 (216–433–2755); Nation of Learners (PNL) Round I grant Libraries and museums are key (d) NASA, Goddard Space Flight applicants. resources for education in the United Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301–286– A copy of the proposed information States and promote the vision of a 4721); collection request can be obtained by learning society in which learning is (e) NASA, Johnson Space Center, contacting the individual listed below seen as a community-wide Houston, TX 77058 (281–483–8612); in the address section of this notice. responsibility supported by both formal (f) NASA, Kennedy Space Center, FL DATES: Written comments must be and informal educational entities. 32899 (321–867–2745); submitted to the office listed in the Current Actions: The Institute of (g) NASA, Langley Research Center, addressee section below on or before Museum and Library Services and the Hampton, VA 23681 (757–864–2497); September 18, 2006. Corporation for Public Broadcasting (h) NASA, Marshall Space Flight IMLS is particularly interested in (CPB) are partnering under a Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 (256–544– comments that help the agency to: Memorandum of Understanding to make 1837); and • Evaluate whether the proposed competitive grants and support (i) NASA, Stennis Space Center, MS collection of information is necessary capacity-building for community 39529 (228–688–2118). for the proper performance of the partnerships among museum, library If and when developed, the CEV functions of the agency, including and public broadcasting outlets and would undergo testing and flight whether the information will have other community organizations to meet certification prior to operational use. practical utility; locally identified community needs in These actions would be the subject of • Evaluate the accuracy of the an initiative titled Partnership for a future NEPA documentation. agency’s estimate of the burden of the Nation of Learners (PNL). The initiative Written public input and comments proposed collocation of information includes professional development on alternatives and environmental including the validity of the resources such as videoconferences and issues and concerns associated with the methodology and assumptions used; Web-based materials for potential development of the CEV are hereby • Enhance the quality, utility and applicants, grantees, and their partners. requested. clarity of the information to be IMLS administers the grants process and collected; and CPB contracts for and manages the Olga M. Dominguez, • Minimize the burden of the professional development and initiative- Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure collection of information on those who level evaluation functions. IMLS seeks and Administration. are to respond, including through the clearance for the partnership to collect [FR Doc. E6–11522 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] use of appropriate automated electronic, and analyze information related to BILLING CODE 7510–13–P mechanical, or other technological evaluation of the PNL initiative. collection techniques or other forms of Overall, IMLS and CPB expect that as information technology, e.g., permitting a result of PNL, museums, libraries, and NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE electronic submissions of responses. public broadcasters will: ARTS AND HUMANITIES ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Karen 1. Collaborate more frequently. Motylewski, Evaluation Officer, 2. Design and deliver projects that Institute of Museum and Library Institute of Museum and Library contribute significantly to solving or Services, Proposed Collection, Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, addressing community needs. Comment Request; Partnership for a Washington, DC. Ms. Motylweski can be 3. Develop skills and knowledge Nation of Learners (PNL) Evaluation: reached by telephone: 202–653–4686; required for effective collaboration. 4. Increase community knowledge of Applicants fax: 202–653–8625; or e-mail: the public value created by library, [email protected]. AGENCY: Institute of Museum and museum, and public broadcasting Library Services. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: initiatives. ACTION: Notice. Background: The Institute of Museum PNL awards were made in September and Library Services (IMLS) is an 2005 and 2006. As part of the PNL SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum and independent Federal grant-making evaluation, a survey will be sent to Library Services as part of its continuing agency authorized by the Museum and applicants who did not receive funding. effort to reduce paperwork and Library Services Act, Public Law 104– This survey will give unsuccessful respondent burden, conducts a pre- 208. IMLS is charged with promoting applicants an opportunity to provide clearance consultation program to the improvement of library and museum feedback to IMLS and CPB on the provide the general public and Federal services for the benefit of the public. application process. The evaluation will agencies with an opportunity to Through grant-making and museum also yield information on what comment on proposed and/or services, IMLS seeks to assure that applicants learned through the continuing collections of information in libraries and museums are able to play application process, their current accordance with the Paperwork an active role in cultivating an educated partnering activity, and their future

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41262 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

interest in learning more about instruments are clearly understood, and use of technology; strategic planning for partnering. Information gathered will the impact of collection requirements on results, and partnerships to create new help IMLS and CPB to identify potential respondents can be properly assessed. networks that support lifelong learning areas for improvement in PNL, The Institute of Museum and Library and the effective management of assets. determine the level of need/interest for Services is currently soliciting According to its strategic plan, IMLS is the initiative within the key stakeholder comments concerning proposed dedicated to creating and sustaining a groups, and access the initiative’s evaluation research of participants in nation of learners by helping libraries contribution to local community results the Partnership for a Nation of Learners and museums serve their communities. and the IMLS and CPB missions. (PNL) professional development IMLS believes that libraries and Agency: Institute of Museum and program. museums are key resources for Library Services. A copy of the proposed information education in the United States and Title: Partnership for a Nation of collection request can be obtained by promote the vision of a learning society Learners (PNL) Evaluation. contacting the individual listed below in which learning is seen as a OMB Number: Agency Number: 3137. in the addressee section of this notice. community-wide responsibility Frequency: One time. DATES: Written comments must be supported by both formal and informal Affected Public: Personnel of submitted to the office listed in the educational entities. museums, museum organizations, addressee section below on or before Current Action: The Institute of libraries, library organizations, and September 18, 2006. Museum and Library Services and the public broadcasting outlets. IMLS is particularly interested in Corporation for Public Broadcasting Number of Respondents: 148. comments that help the agency to: (CPB) are partnering under a Estimated Time per Respondent: 20 • Evaluate whether the proposed Memorandum of Understanding to make minutes. collection of information is necessary competitive grants and support Total Burden Hours: 50 hours. for the proper performance of the capacity-building for community Total Annualized capital/startup functions of the agency, including partnerships among museum, library costs: 0. whether the information will have Total Annual costs: 0. and public broadcasting outlets and practical utility; other community organizations to meet FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: • Evaluate the accuracy of the locally identified community needs in Karen Motylewski, Evaluation Officer, agency’s estimate of the burden of the an initiative titled Partnership for a Institute of Museum and Library proposed collocation of information Nation of Learners (PNL). The initiative Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, including the validity of the includes professional development Washington, DC. Telephone: 202–653– methodology and assumptions used; resources such as videoconferences and 4686; fax: 202–653–8625; e-mail: • Enhance the quality, utility and Web-based materials for potential [email protected]. clarity of the information to be applicants, grantees, and their partners. Dated: July 17, 2006. collected; and IMLS and CPB have publicized these • Rebecca Danvers, Minimize the burden of the opportunities and resources extensively. Director, Office of Research and Technology. collection of information on those who IMLS administers the grants process and [FR Doc. 06–6369 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] are to respond, including through the CPB contracts for and manages the use of appropriate automated electronic, BILLING CODE 7036–01–M professional development and initiative- mechanical, or other technological level evaluation functions. IMLS seeks collection techniques or other forms of clearance for the partnership to collect NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE information technology, e.g., permitting and analyze information related to ARTS AND HUMANITIES electronic submissions of responses. evaluation of the PNL initiative. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Karen Overall, IMLS and CPB expect that as Institute of Museum and Library Motylewski, Evaluation Officer, a result of PNL, museums, libraries, and Services, Proposed Collection, Institute of Museum and Library public broadcasters will: Comment Request; Partnership for a Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, 1. Collaborate more frequently. Nation of Learners (PNL) Evaluation: Washington, DC. Ms. Motylewski can be 2. Design and deliver projects that Professional Development Activities reached by telephone: 202–653–4686; contribute significantly to solving or fax: 202–653–8625; or e-mail: addressing community needs. AGENCY: Institute of Museum and [email protected]. 3. Develop skills and knowledge Library Services. required for effective collaboration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ACTION: Notice. 4. Increase community knowledge of Background: The Institute of Museum the public value created by library, SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum and and Library Services (IMLS) is an museum, and public broadcasting Library Services as part of its continuing independent Federal grant-making initiatives. effort to reduce paperwork and agency authorized by the Museum and The PNL professional development respondent burden, conducts a pre- Library Services Act, Public Law 104– program has included following events: clearance consultation program to 208. IMLS is charged with promoting 1. Videoconference #1, 11/31/05. provide the general public and Federal the improvement of library and museum 2. Interactive Session #1: Getting agencies with an opportunity to services for the benefit of the public. Started with Community Collaboration, comment on proposed and/or Through grant-making and library and 1/19/06. continuing collections of information in museum services, IMLS seeks to assure 3. Interactive Session #2: Recognizing accordance with the Paperwork that libraries and museums are able to the Need, 2/07/06. Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 play an active role in cultivating an 4. Interactive Session #3: Gathering U.S.C. 3508(2)(A)]. This program helps educated and engaged citizenry. IMLS the Talent, 3/09/06. to ensure that requested data can be builds the capacities of libraries and 5. Interactive Session #4: Designing provided in the desired format, museums by encouraging the highest for Impact, 4/12/06. reporting burden (time and financial standards in management, public 6. Interactive Session #5: Managing resources) is minimized, collection service, and education; leadership in the for Success, 5/11/06.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41263

7. Interactive Session #2, 6/19/06. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently below by August 21, 2006. Comments An estimated 3,000 persons will have submitted to OMB for review the received after this date will be engaged in one or more of these events. following proposal for the collection of considered if it is practical to do so, but An online survey of participants will be information under the provisions of the assurance of consideration cannot be conducted after the final event is Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 given to comments received after this completed in June 2006. the survey will U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby date. give these individuals an opportunity to informs potential respondents that an John A. Asalone, Office of Information provide feedback on the activities of the agency may not conduct or sponsor, and and Regulatory Affairs (3150–0181), PNL professional development program. that a person is not required to respond NEOB–10202, Office of Management The evaluation will yield information to, a collection of information unless it and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. on what participants learned through displays a currently valid OMB control Comments can also be e-mailed to the program, their current partnering number. [email protected] or activity, and their future interest in and 1. Type of submission, new, revision, submitted by telephone at (202) 395– need for learning about partnering. or extension: Extension. 4650. Information gathered will help IMLS 2. The title of the information The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda and CPB to identify potential areas for collection: NRC Form 590, Application/ Jo. Shelton, 301–415–7233. improvement in PNL professional Permit for Use of the Two White Flint Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day development activities, determine the (TWFN) Auditorium. of July, 2006. level of need/interest for this resource 3. The form number if applicable: For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. within the key stakeholder groups, and NRC Form 590. Brenda Jo. Shelton, assess the contribution of the 4. How often the collection is NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information professional development resources to required: Each time public use of the Services. meeting local needs and the IMLS and auditorium is requested. [FR Doc. E6–11515 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] 5. Who will be required or asked to CPB missions. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Agency: Institute of Museum and report: Members of the public Library Services. requesting use of the NRC Auditorium. Title: Partnership for a Nation of 6. An estimate of the number of NUCLEAR REGULATORY Learners (PNL) Evaluation. annual responses: 5. COMMISSION OMB Number: Agency Number: 3137. 7. The estimated number of annual Frequency: One time Affected Public: respondents: 5. Advisory Committee on Nuclear Personnel of museums, museum 8. An estimate of the total number of Waste; Renewal Notice organizations, libraries, library hours needed annually to complete the organizations, and public broadcasting requirement or request: 1.25 hours (15 AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory outlets. minutes per request). Commission. Number of Respondents: 2400. 9. An indication of whether section ACTION: This notice is to announce the Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 3507(d), Public Law 104–13 applies: renewal of the Advisory Committee on minutes. N/A. Nuclear Waste (ACNW) for a period of Total Burden Hours: 400. 10. Abstract: In accordance with the two years. Total Annualized capital/startup Public Buildings Act of 1959, an costs: 0. agreement was reached between the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Total Annual costs: 0. Maryland-National Capital Park and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Commission (MPPC), the has determined that the renewal of the Karen Motylewski, Evaluation Officer, General Services Administration (GSA), charter for the Advisory Committee on Institute of Museum and Library and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Waste for the two year period Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, that the NRC auditorium will be made commencing on July 14, 2006, is in the Washington, DC. Telephone: 202–653– available for public use. Public users of public interest, in connection with 4686; fax 202–653–8625; e-mail: the auditorium will be required to duties imposed on the Commission by [email protected]. complete NRC Form 590, Application/ law. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal Advisory Dated: July 17, 2006. Permit for Use of Two White Flint North (TWFN) Auditorium. The information is Committee Act, after consultation with Rebecca Danvers, needed to allow for administrative and the Committee Management Secretariat, Director, Office of Research and Technology. security review and scheduling, and to General Services Administration. [FR Doc. 06–6370 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] make a determination that there are no The purpose of the Advisory BILLING CODE 7036–01–M anticipated problems with the requester Committee on Nuclear Waste is to report prior to utilization of the facility. to and advise the Nuclear Regulatory A copy of the final supporting Commission (NRC) on nuclear waste NUCLEAR REGULATORY statement may be viewed free of charge management. The bases of ACNW COMMISSION at the NRC Public Document Room, One reviews include 10 CFR parts 20, 40, 50, White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 60, 61, 63, 70, 71 and 72, and other Agency Information Collection Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD applicable regulations and legislative Activities: Submission for the Office of 20852. OMB clearance requests are mandates. In performing its work, the Management and Budget (OMB) available at the NRC worldwide Web Committee will examine and report on Review; Comment Request site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ those areas of concern referred to it by AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory doc-comment/omb/index.html. The the Commission and may undertake Commission (NRC). document will be available on the NRC studies and activities on its own home page site for 60 days after the initiative, as appropriate. Emphasis will ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of be on protecting the public health and information collection and solicitation signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be safety in the disposal of nuclear waste of public comment. directed to the OMB reviewer listed and the handling and processing of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41264 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

nuclear materials. The Committee will Modifications to Selected Technical that the change will likely be offered for undertake studies and activities related Specifications for Conditions Leading to adoption by licensees. This notice to nuclear materials and waste Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ which was solicits comment on a proposed change management such as transportation, approved by an NRC SE dated July 9, to the STS that allows changes in CE waste determinations, reprocessing, 2004. Licensees of CE nuclear power plant conditions leading to exigent plant storage and disposal facilities, in situ reactors to which the models apply shutdown in technical specifications leaching mining, mill tailings, could then request amendments, (TS), if risk is assessed and managed. enrichment facilities, health effects, confirming the applicability of the SE The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to decommissioning, materials safety, and NSHC determination to their evaluate any comments received for a application of risk-informed, reactors. The NRC staff is requesting proposed change to the STS and to performance-based regulations, and comment on the model SE and model either reconsider the change or evaluation of licensing documents, rules NSHC determination prior to announce the availability of the change and regulatory guidance. The announcing their availability for for adoption by licensees. Licensees Committee will interact with referencing in license amendment opting to apply for this TS change are representatives of the public, NRC, applications. responsible for reviewing the staff’s Advisory Committee on Reactor evaluation, referencing the applicable DATES: The comment period expires Safeguards, other Federal agencies, State technical justifications, and providing August 21, 2006. Comments received and local agencies, Indian Tribes, and any necessary plant-specific private, international, and other after this date will be considered if it is information. Each amendment organizations as appropriate to fulfill its practical to do so, but the Commission application made in response to the responsibilities. is able to ensure consideration only for notice of availability will be processed comments received on or before this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John and noticed in accordance with date. T. Larkins, Executive Director of the applicable NRC rules and procedures. Committee, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ADDRESSES: Comments may be This notice involves the changes in Commission, Washington, DC 20555, submitted either electronically or via CE plant conditions leading to exigent telephone (301) 415–7360. U.S. mail. Submit written comments to plant shutdown in TS, if risk is assessed and managed. The change was proposed Dated: July 14, 2006. Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, in Topical Report WCAP–16125–NP Rev Andrew L. Bates, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T– 0, September 2003 (previously CE Federal Advisory Committee, Management 6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NPSD–1208, Rev 0), ‘‘Justification for Officer. Commission, Washington, DC 20555– the Risk Informed Modifications to [FR Doc. E6–11514 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] 0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Selected Technical Specifications for BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Conditions Leading to Exigent Plant between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Shutdown,’’ which was approved by an Federal workdays. Copies of comments NRC SE dated July 9, 2004. This change NUCLEAR REGULATORY was proposed for incorporation into the COMMISSION received may be examined at the NRC’s Public Document Room, 11555 STS by the owners groups participants Technical Specification Improvement Rockville Pike (Room O–1F21), in the Technical Specification Task for Combustion Engineering Plants to Rockville, Maryland. Comments may be Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF– Risk-Inform Requirements Regarding submitted by electronic mail to 426, Rev 0. TSTF–426, Rev 0, can be Conditions Leading to Exigent Plant [email protected]. viewed on the NRC’s web page at Shutdown Using the Consolidated Line http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.R. licensing/techspecs.html. Item Improvement Process Tjader, Mail Stop: O–12H2, Division of Applicability AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Commission. Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. This proposal to modify TS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ACTION: Request for comment. requirements by the adoption of TSTF– Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 426, Rev 0, is applicable to all licensees SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 301–415–1187. of CE plants who commit to WCAP– the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 16446–NP, Rev 0, ‘‘Actions to Preclude Commission (NRC) has prepared a Entry into LCO 3.0.3 Implementation Background model safety evaluation (SE) relating to Guidance (PA–RMCS–0196),’’ June changes in Combustion Engineering Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06, 2005. (CE) plant conditions leading to exigent ‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement To efficiently process the incoming plant shutdown in technical Process for Adopting Standard license amendment applications, the specifications (TS). The NRC staff has Technical Specifications Changes for staff requests that each licensee also prepared a model no-significant- Power Reactors,’’ was issued on March applying for the changes proposed in hazards-consideration (NSHC) 20, 2000. The consolidated line item TSTF–426 include Bases for the determination relating to this matter and improvement process (CLIIP) is proposed TS consistent with the Bases a model license amendment request intended to improve the efficiency of proposed in TSTF–426. The CLIIP does (LAR). The purpose of these models is NRC licensing processes, by processing not prevent licensees from requesting an to permit the NRC to efficiently process proposed changes to the standard alternative approach or proposing the amendments that propose to adopt technical specifications (STS) in a changes without the requested Bases. technical specifications changes, manner that supports subsequent However, deviations from the approach designated as TSTF–426, related to license amendment applications. The recommended in this notice may require Topical Report WCAP–16125–NP, CLIIP includes an opportunity for the additional review by the NRC staff and Revision 0 (Rev 0), September 2003 public to comment on proposed changes may increase the time and resources (previously CE NPSD–1208, Rev. 0), to the STS after a preliminary needed for the review. Significant ‘‘Justification for the Risk Informed assessment by the NRC staff and finding variations from the approach, or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41265

inclusion of additional changes to the for the Risk Informed Modifications to entry) or conditions exist where the license, will result in staff rejection of Selected Technical Specifications for defined action includes an explicit LCO the submittal. Instead, licensees desiring Conditions Leading to Exigent Plant 3.0.3 entry. The intent of the proposed significant variations and/or additional Shutdown,’’ which was approved by an TS changes is to provide a risk-informed changes should submit a LAR that does NRC safety evaluation (SE) dated July 9, alternative to the current LCO 3.0.3 not claim to adopt TSTF–426. 2004 into the CE STS. This proposal is requirements such that the plant staff part of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has adequate time to fully evaluate the Public Notices Risk Informed Technical Specifications situation or restore loss of function This notice requests comments from Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 6, one of while the plant remains operating at interested members of the public within the industry’s initiatives being power, thus avoiding unnecessary 30 days of the date of publication in the developed under the Risk Management unscheduled plant shutdowns and Federal Register. After evaluating the Technical Specifications (RMTS) minimizing transition and realignment comments received as a result of this program. These initiatives are intended risks. notice, the staff will either reconsider to maintain or improve safety through WCAP–16125–NP also provides the proposed change or announce the the incorporation of risk assessment and system-specific integrated justifications availability of the change in a management techniques in technical (i.e., risk and defense-in-depth subsequent notice (perhaps with some specifications (TS), while reducing arguments) for several proposed TS changes to the safety evaluation or the unnecessary burden and making Required Action statement changes to proposed NSHC determination as a technical specification requirements allow a MODE 4 (hot shutdown) end result of public comments). If the staff consistent with the Commission’s other state, for repair purposes of two-train announces the availability of the risk-informed regulatory requirements. redundant systems that do not have change, licensees wishing to adopt the The Code of Federal Regulations, 10 explicit LCO 3.0.3 entry requirements, change must submit an application in CFR 50.36(c)(2)(I), ‘‘Technical when the proposed extended time accordance with applicable rules and Specifications; Limiting Conditions for cannot be met. other regulatory requirements. For each Operation,’’ states: ‘‘When a limiting The intent of the proposed TS application, the staff will publish a condition for operation of a nuclear changes is to provide needed flexibility notice of consideration of issuance of reactor is not met, the licensee shall in the performance of corrective amendment to facility operating shut down the reactor or follow any maintenance during power operation licenses, a proposed NSHC remedial action permitted by the and at the same time enhance overall determination, and a notice of technical specifications until the plant safety by: • opportunity for a hearing. The staff will condition can be met.’’ TS provide a Avoiding unnecessary unscheduled completion time (CT) limit for following plant shutdowns, also publish a notice of issuance of an • amendment to operating license to any remedial action permitted by the TS Minimizing plant transitions and announce the modifications of until the limiting condition for associated transition and realignment operation (LCO) can be met. If the LCO risks, conditions leading to exigent plant • shutdown in selected technical or the remedial action cannot be met on Providing increased flexibility in specifications. the specified CT, then the reactor is scheduling and performing maintenance required to be shutdown. and surveillance activities, and Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day The Required Action for Conditions • Providing explicit guidance in areas of July 2006. that imply a loss of function, related to that currently does not exist. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. a system or component included within It should be noted that many of the Carl S. Schulten, the scope of the plant TS, is entry into proposed TS changes affect the existing Acting Chief, Technical Specifications LCO 3.0.3. Currently, upon entering plant shutdown requirements for plant Branch, Division of Inspection & Regional LCO 3.0.3, one hour is allowed to conditions where the plant operation is Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor prepare for an orderly shutdown before not in explicit compliance with the Regulation. initiating a change in plant operation. plant design basis. The proposed actions Attachment—Proposed Safety This includes time to permit the provide a risk-informed process for Evaluation, United States Nuclear operator to coordinate the reduction in establishing shutdown priorities aiming Regulatory Commission; Office of electrical generation with the load at reducing overall plant risk and Nuclear Reactor Regulation; dispatcher to ensure the stability and increasing public health and safety Consolidated Line Item Improvement availability of the electrical grid. The protection. Technical Specification Task Force OG is proposing to define and/or modify 2.0 Regulatory Evaluation (TSTF) Change TSTF–426 Risk various TS Conditions to accommodate Informed Modifications to Selected extension of the currently required time In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission Technical Specifications for Conditions of one hour to initiate plant shutdown established its regulatory requirements Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown for members with Combustion related to the content of TS. Pursuant to Engineering (CE) Nuclear Steam Supply 10 CFR 50.36(c)(1)–(5), TS are required 1.0 Introduction Systems (NSSS) designs. The proposed to include items in the following five On August 30, 2004, the Owners extension, related to specific systems or specific categories related to station Group (OG) Technical Specifications components, is based on the system’s operation: (1) Safety limits, limiting Task Force (TSTF) submitted a risk significance and varies from 4 hours safety system settings, and limiting proposed change, TSTF–426, Revision 0 to 72 hours. control settings; (2) limiting conditions (Rev 0), to the Combustion Engineering The proposed changes are typically for operation (LCOs); (3) surveillance (CE) standard technical specifications associated with plant conditions where requirements (SRs); (4) design features; (STS) (NUREG–1432) on behalf of the both trains of a two-train redundant and (5) administrative controls. The rule industry. TSTF–426, Rev 0, is a system are declared inoperable and at does not specify the particular proposal to incorporate WCAP–16125– the same time there is either no requirements to be included in a plant’s NP Rev 0, (previously CE NPSD–1208, specified action in the TS for the TS. As stated in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i), Rev 0), of September 2003, ‘‘Justification condition (requiring a default LCO 3.0.3 the ‘‘Limiting conditions for operation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41266 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

are the lowest functional capability or TSTF–426 changes with respect to the during normal plant operation and are performance levels of equipment individual specifications. In its intended to function during accidents to required for safe operation of the application the licensee commits to PA– prevent core damage. Typical examples facility. When a limiting condition for RMSC–0196, ‘‘Actions to Preclude Entry in this category are the Emergency Core operation of a nuclear reactor is not met, into LCO 3.0.3, Implementation Cooling System (ECCS) and the the licensee shall shut down the reactor Guidance’’ (Reference 4) for pressurizer Power Operated Relief or follow any remedial action permitted implementing TSTF–426, Rev 0, which Valves (PORVs). by the technical specifications * * *.’’ addresses a variety of issues such as • TS changes related to systems or Topical Report WCAP–16125, considerations and compensatory components contributing to large early ‘‘Justification for Risk-Informed actions for risk-significant plant release prevention. The primary role of Modifications to Selected Technical configurations. An overview of the these systems is to function during a Specifications for Conditions Leading to generic evaluation and associated risk core damage accident to prevent large Exigent plant Shutdown’’ (Reference 1), assessment is provided below, along releases of radioactive materials. A justifies modifications to various TS with a summary of the associated TS typical example in this category is the Action Statements for conditions that changes justified by Reference 1. containment (the only component in result in a loss of safety function related The proposed TS changes, including this category for which a TS change is to a system or component included end state changes (i.e., approved TSTF– proposed). within the scope of the plant TS. It 422 end state changes), are summarized • revises the current Required Actions in Table 1 of this safety evaluation TS changes related to systems/ from either a default or explicit LCO report (SER). Such changes cover a components contributing to control of 3.0.3 entry to a risk-informed action diverse range of systems and delayed radiation releases to the based on the system’s risk significance components with essentially four environment. The primary role of these with an associated completion time separate impacts on plant risk. They are: systems is to prevent radiation releases (CT). In most instances, a CT of 24 hours • TS changes related to systems or above TS limits and meet design basis is justified. components contributing to accident requirements. Thus, the unavailability prevention. The removal of these of these systems has no impact on the 3.0 Technical Evaluation systems/components has the potential surrogate risk metrics associated with The changes proposed in TSTF–426, to increase the plant risk through the core damage and large early releases. Rev 0, are consistent with the changes increased potential for plant upsets (i.e., Typical examples in this category are proposed and justified in Topical Report potential for increased initiated event the ECCS room ventilation system and WCAP–16125–NP Rev 0, and approved frequencies). A typical example in this the containment iodine cleanup system. by the associated NRC SE of July 9, 2004 category are the pressurizer heaters Although the improved standard (Reference 2). The evaluation included whose unavailability could complicate technical specification (STS) numbering in Reference 2, as appropriate and plant pressure control and lead to a system (NUREG–1432, Reference 5) is applicable to the changes of TSTF–426, plant trip. used for convenience in Table 1, the Rev 0, (Reference 3), is not reiterated • TS changes related to systems or analyses provided in WCAP–16125–NP here, except where differences from the components contributing to accident support these changes for all CE SE are justified and in discussing the mitigation. These systems are in standby designed NSSS plants.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Current action and associated Proposed changes: comple- STS # System Inoperability condition completion time (CT) tion time (CT) and end state

LCO 3.4.9 .... Pressurizer Heaters ...... Both groups of class 1E heat- No condition defined. Default 24 hrs CT for restoring one ers inoperable. LCO 3.0.3 entry. group. LCO 3.4.11 .. Pressurizer Power Operated STS LCO 3.4.11 CONDITION Varies with plant. STS LCO 3.4.11 CONDITION Relief Valves (PORVs) and E (or equivalent): Two STS LCO 3.4.11 CONDITION E (or equivalent): Allow 8 Associated Block Valves PORVs inoperable and not E (or equivalent): Close as- hours CT to restore one (BVs). capable of being manually sociated block valve in 1 PORV, for conditions where cycled. hour AND remove power a PORV is unable to STS LCO 3.4.11 CONDITION from associated block valve reclose once challenged but F (or equivalent): Two BVs in one hour, AND be in may be isolated. inoperable. MODE 3 in 6 hours AND STS LCO 3.4.11 CONDITION MODE 4 in [12] hours. F (or equivalent): Allow 8 STS LCO 3.4.11 CONDITION hours to restore one BV. F (or equivalent): Restore one block valve to operable in 2 hours. STS Condition G requires MODE 3 in 6 hours and MODE 4 in [12] hours if Condition F not met. LCO 3.5.1 .... Safety Injection Tanks (SITs) Two or more SITs inoperable Explicit 3.0.3 entry ...... Revise STS Condition D to (STS CONDITION D). allow 24 hours CT for re- storing one SIT. LCO 3.5.2 .... Low Pressure Safety Injection Two LPSI subsystems inoper- Default 3.0.3 entry ...... 24 hours for restoring one (LPSI). able. LPSI subsystem (STS Con- dition D would be deleted). LCO 3.5.2 .... High Pressure Safety Injection Two HPSI subsystems inoper- Explicit 3.0.3 entry ...... 4 hours CT for restoring one (HPSI). able (STS Condition D). HPSI subsystem.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41267

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS—Continued

Current action and associated Proposed changes: comple- STS # System Inoperability condition completion time (CT) tion time (CT) and end state

LCO 3.6.1 .... Containment (CTMT) ...... Inoperable ...... Defined 1 hour shutdown 8 hours CT restoring contain- (MODE 5 in 36 hours). ment operability. Allow MODE 4 end state. LCO Containment Spray System Two CS trains inoperable OR Explicit 3.0.3 entry ...... 12 hrs CT for restoring one 3.6.6A&B. (CS). any combination of three or CS train if CAC is not avail- more trains inoperable (i.e., able. 72 hours CT for re- containment air coolers storing one CS if one train (CAC*)) (STS Condition F). of CAC is available. LCO 3.6.10 .. Iodine Cleanup System (ICS) Two ICS trains inoperable ...... No condition defined. Default 24 hours CT for restoring one 3.0.3 entry. train. Allow MODE 4 end state. LCO 3.6.13 .. Shield Building Exhaust Air Two trains inoperable ...... No condition defined. Default 24 hours CT for restoring one Cleanup System (SBEACS). 3.0.3 entry. train. Allow MODE 4 end state. LCO 3.7.11 .. Control Room Emergency Air Two trains inoperable ...... No condition defined. Default 24 hours CT for restoring one Cleanup System (CREACS). 3.0.3 entry. train (or the time to reach 5 REM, which may be less than 24 hours). Proposed change applies to radiation protection function only. Allow MODE 4 end state. LCO 3.7.12 .. Control Room Emergency Air Two trains inoperable (STS Explicit 3.0.3 ...... 24 hours CT for restoring one Temperature Control Sys- Condition E). train. Allow MODE 4 end tem (CREATCS). state. LCO 3.7.13 .. Emergency Core Cooling Sys- Two trains inoperable ...... No condition defined. Default 24 hours CT for restoring one tem (ECCS), Pump Room 3.0.3 entry. train. Allow MODE 4 end Exhaust Air Cleanup Sys- state. tem (ECCS PREACS). LCO 3.7.15 .. Penetration Room, Exhaust Two trains inoperable ...... No condition defined. Default 24 hours CT for restoring one Air Cleanup System 3.0.3 entry. train. Allow MODE 4 end (PREACS). state. * Also known as containment air recirculation coolers (CARC)

WCAP–16125–NP documents a risk- • A condition resulting in the damage frequency (DCDF) and the informed analysis of the proposed TS inoperability of a system or component average yearly large early release changes. Probabilistic Risk Assessment which currently results in the need for frequency (DLERF) and (2) by the (PRA) results and insights are used, in an immediate shutdown is an infrequent incremental conditional core damage combination with results of event. This is evidenced by the fact that probability (ICCDP) and the incremental deterministic assessments, to identify plant shutdowns due to entries into conditional large early release and justify the proposed TS changes for LCO 3.0.3 conditions are rare. probability (ICLERP). The assessed all CE NSSS design plants. This is in Furthermore, when such a condition DCDF and DLERF values are compared accordance with guidance provided in does arise, the actual cause of the to acceptance guidelines, consistent Regulatory Guides (RGs) 1.174 and inoperability is often due to an with the Commission’s Safety Goal 1.177 (References 6 and 7, respectively). incomplete ‘‘paper trail’’ or a partial Policy Statement as documented in RG The approach used to assess the risk system failure rather than a deleterious 1.174, so that the plant’s average impact of the proposed changes is common-cause failure of critical baseline risk is maintained within a discussed and evaluated in Section 3.0. components leading to a functional minimal range. The assessed ICCDP and Section 3.1 evaluates the results of the failure of an entire system. ICLERP values are compared to risk assessment. Section 3.2 provides • The risk incurred by increasing the acceptance guidelines provided in RG integrated justifications (i.e., both required shutdown action time is 1.177 which aim at ensuring that the probabilistic and deterministic controlled to acceptable levels using a plant risk does not increase arguments) for each of the proposed risk informed approach that considers unacceptably during the period the system-specific TS changes. Finally, the component risk worth and offsetting equipment is taken out of service. Section 3.3 summarizes the staff’s benefits of avoiding plant transitions. • conclusions from the review of the The second tier involves the proposed TS changes. The risk impact of the proposed TS identification of potentially high-risk changes was assessed following the configurations that could exist if 3.1 Risk Assessment three-tiered approach recommended in equipment in addition to that associated The objective of the OG’s risk RG 1.177 for evaluating proposed with the change were to be taken out of assessment was to show that the extensions in currently allowed service simultaneously, or other risk- implementation of the proposed TS Completion Times (CTs): significant operational factors such as changes are not expected to lead to any • The first tier involves the concurrent equipment testing were also significant risk increases. In performing assessment of the change in plant risk involved. The objective is to ensure that the risk-informed assessments and due to the proposed TS change. Such appropriate restrictions are in place to interpreting the results, the following risk change is expressed (1) by the avoid any potential high-risk two assumptions are tacitly made: change in the average yearly core configurations.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41268 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

• The third tier involves the component’s function), the redundancy heaters covered by the TS may establishment of an overall and diversity typically associated with complicate steady state plant pressure configuration risk management program ensuring the deterministic aspect of control and, thus, increase the potential (CRMP) to ensure that potentially risk- defense-in-depth position is not always for an unplanned reactor trip. significant configurations resulting from strictly possible. In these cases, defense- Another function of the Class 1E maintenance and other operational in-depth is considered by (1) controlling pressurizer heaters is to maintain plant activities are identified. The objective of the outage time for related equipment, subcooling during post accident the CRMP is to manage configuration- (2) restricting activities which may cooldown by natural circulation. specific risk by appropriate scheduling challenge the unavailable systems or Although the unavailability of of plant activities and/or appropriate functions, (3) allowing only small time pressurizer heaters during natural compensatory measures. intervals for plant operation at power circulation cooldown will extend the The approach used in implementing with a system or function unavailable, time to reach the shutdown cooling the three-tiered approach of RG 1.177 to (4) using, whenever possible, system entry conditions, heat removal support the proposed TS changes is contingency actions to limit concurrent will be adequately established via steam fully evaluated in the SE (Reference 2) unavailabilities appropriately, and (5) generator cooling. to WCAP–16125–NP Rev 0. The staff evaluating repair activities and Plant Applicability: All OG member found that the risk assessment results alternatives. Defense-in-depth is plants with CE NSSS designs except St support the proposed changes. The risk evaluated in conjunction with the Lucie-2. increases associated with the proposed generic risk assessment results which Limiting Condition for Operation TS changes, if any, will be insignificant conclude that the proposed system- (LCO): Two groups of pressurizer based on guidance provided in RGs specific TS changes would lead to heaters, [capable of being powered from 1.174 and 1.177. Furthermore, the insignificant risk increases and in most an emergency power supply], must be sensitivity studies and the many cases to net risk reductions. This operable in MODES 1, 2 and 3. conservative assumptions used in the conclusion is a consequence of the low Condition Requiring Entry into analyses provide adequate assurance expected challenge frequency of the Shutdown Required Action: Two safety- about the robustness of the results used systems or functions associated with the related pressurizer heater groups to support the proposed TS changes. proposed TS changes, the very short inoperable (default entry into LCO 3.0.3 3.2 Assessment of Technical proposed exposure times to the is required). Specification Changes specified plant conditions and the Proposed Modification to Shutdown offsetting benefits of avoiding plant Required Actions: Increase the time There are two categories of proposed transitions. available to take action to restore one system-specific TS changes. The first The proposed change in shutdown category includes changes associated mode end states will result in plants group of safety-related heaters before with plant conditions requiring entry remaining within the applicability of entry into STS LCO 3.4.9 Condition C to into LCO 3.0.3 to extend the time for the specific LCOs for the length of time 24 hours. restoring the system’s or component’s it takes to restore the LCO conditions. Assessment: The risk assessment loss of function, thus avoiding Since corrective maintenance will be results (in Reference 2) indicate that the unnecessary unscheduled plant necessary, the 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) proposed 24-hour completion time for shutdowns and minimizing transition requirement to assess and manage risk restoring one group of safety-related and realignment risks. The second will apply, and should confirm that pressurizer heaters before entering STS category includes changes to TS remaining in the shutdown mode that is LCO 3.4.9 Condition C will not lead to Required Action statements to allow a within the applicability of the LCO is a significant increase in risk and may MODE 4 (hot shutdown) end state, for acceptable for the plant specific actually decrease risk. The risk impact repair purposes of two-train redundant configuration. NRC Regulatory Guide of the proposed completion time systems that do not have implicit LCO 1.182 (Reference 9) endorses NUMARC extension was assessed to be well 3.0.3 entry requirements, when the 93–01 Section 11 guidance for within the acceptance criteria reported proposed extended time cannot be met. implementation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4), in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. The generic risk assessment for the and shall be followed; including the Specifically, the proposed completion proposed end state changes is conduct of an (a)(4) reevaluation for time extension would lead to the documented in topical report CE– emergent conditions. following risk increases: (1) The NPSD–1186 (Reference 8) which has probability of core damage when the been reviewed and approved by the 3.2.1 Pressurizer Heaters (STS LCO safety-related pressurizer heaters are staff. While all proposed system-specific 3.4.9) inoperable will increase by about 3E–7 TS changes include changes to extend The pressurizer provides a point in (the acceptance guideline for ICCDP is the time for restoring the system’s or the RCS where the liquid and vapor 5E–7); (2) the CDF will increase by component’s loss of function (first water phases are maintained in about 6E–8/year (the acceptance category changes), some proposed equilibrium under saturated conditions guideline for DCDF is 1E–6/year); (3) the system-specific TS changes include for pressure control purposes to prevent large early release probability when the changes to modify the end state (second bulk boiling in the remainder of the safety-related pressurizer heaters are category changes). Therefore, the RCS. The pressure control components inoperable will increase by less than integrated justifications, discussed in addressed by this LCO include the 1E–8 (the acceptance guideline for this section, include insights from the pressurizer, the required groups of ICLERP is 5E–8); and (4) the LERF will generic risk assessments documented in heaters and their controls and the Class increase by about 2E–9/year (the both topical reports WCAP–16125–NP 1E power supplies. The liquid to vapor acceptance guideline for DLERF is 1E– (Reference 1) and CE–NPSD–1186 interface permits RCS pressure control 7/year). Furthermore, the proposed time (Reference 8). by using the sprays and heaters during extension may actually be risk neutral Due to the nature of the plant normal operation and in response to or result in a decrease in risk if credit conditions associated with the proposed anticipated design basis accidents. The for avoiding the transition to shutdown TS changes (i.e., loss of a system’s or unavailability of Class 1E pressurizer risk is taken.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41269

The risk impact argument is to 24 hours for cases when both groups proposed 8-hour completion time for consistent with the following are inoperable is acceptable. the actions required by TS (i.e., actions observations. TS include requirements Tier 2 Restrictions: None. associated with STS LCO 3.4.11 for both groups of safety-related 3.2.2 Pressurizer PORVs and Conditions E and F or equivalent) will pressurizer heaters to have minimum Associated Block Valves (STS LCO not lead to a significant increase in risk heating power [and emergency power 3.4.11) and, actually, may decrease risk by supply capability]. The safety-related avoiding the risk associated with the pressurizer heaters have two primary PORVs are automatically opened at a transition to shutdown. The risk impact functions. One function is to keep the specific set pressure when the of the proposed completion time reactor coolant in a subcooled condition pressurizer pressure increases and extension, without credit for avoiding with natural circulation following a loss automatically closed on decreasing the transition to shutdown risk, was of offsite power (LOOP) event during pressure. The PORVs may be manually assessed to be within the acceptance which the normally available station operated using controls installed in the criteria reported in Regulatory Guides powered non-safety related heaters control room. An electric, normally 1.174 and 1.177. Specifically, the become unavailable. Although no credit open, block valve (BV) is installed proposed time extension would lead to is taken in design basis accident between the pressurizer and the PORV. the following risk increases: (1) The analyses for the pressurizer heaters, they The function of the BV is to ensure RCS probability of core damage will increase have been included in the TS because integrity by isolating a leaking or stuck- by about 8E–7, which is close to the they are needed to maintain long term open PORV to permit continued power numerical guideline of 5E–7 for ICCDP subcooling during a LOOP event. operation. Most importantly, the BV is used in RG 1.177; (2) the CDF will However, pressurizer heaters are not used to isolate a stuck open PORV and increase by about 2E–7/year, which is required to achieve a post-trip plant terminate the RCS depressurization and significantly less than the acceptance cooldown since successful cooldown coolant inventory loss. guideline of 1E–6/year for DCDF; (3) the can be achieved, with minimal impact Plant Applicability: Calvert Cliffs 1 & large early release probability will on plant risk, due to the availability of 2, St Lucie 1 & 2 (block valves), increase by less than 7E–8, which is reactor vessel and pressurizer vents. Millstone 2, Palisades, and Fort Calhoun close to the numerical guideline of 5E– Consequently, the pressurizer heaters do Station. 8 for ICLERP and in agreement with Limiting Condition for Operation not have a significant role in the guidance provided in RG 1.177; and (4) (LCO): Each PORV and associated block mitigation of core damage events. A the LERF will increase by about 1E–8/ valve shall be operable in MODES 1, 2 second function of the safety-related year, which is significantly less than the and 3. acceptance guideline of 1E–7/year for pressurizer heaters is to back up the Condition Requiring Entry into station powered non-safety related DLERF. Furthermore, the proposed time Shutdown Required Action: Two PORVs extension may actually be risk neutral heaters which are normally available to inoperable and not capable of being control reactor coolant pressure during or result in a decrease in risk if credit manually cycled (STS LCO 3.4.11 for avoiding the transition to shutdown steady state operation. The Condition E or equivalent) or two BVs unavailability of these heaters would risk is taken. inoperable (STS LCO 3.4.11 Condition F The risk impact argument is reduce the plant’s ability to control the or equivalent). There is a variability in normal operating parameters and consistent with the following defense- LCO entry requirements among OG in-depth argument where the impact of consequently will increase the potential member plants with CE NSSS designs STS LCO 3.4.11 Conditions E and F on of plant trip. for conditions with both PORVs defense-in-depth is discussed. The The presence of both safety-related inoperable or both BVs inoperable. primary purpose of this LCO is to and non-safety-related heaters provides Typically, a plant shutdown is required ensure that the PORVs and the BVs are considerable defense-in-depth for many if the PORVs are not isolated and one operable so the potential for a small transient events, except following a PORV is not restored within one hour break LOCA through the PORV pathway LOOP event. For LOOP events and (STS LCO 3.4.11 Condition E or is minimized, or if a small LOCA were without the safety-related pressurizer equivalent) or when the PORVs are not to occur through a failed open PORV, heaters, a natural circulation cooldown placed in manual control within one the block valve could be manually may be required. Such cooldowns can hour and one BV is not recovered operated to isolate the path. In addition, be conducted via use of reactor vessel within two hours (STS LCO 3.4.11 one of the functions of the PORVs is to and pressurizer vents or SG venting via Condition F or equivalent). limit the number of pressure transients the atmospheric dump valves (ADVs). Proposed Modification to Shutdown that may challenge the primary safety The intent of the proposed Required Actions: Revise STS LCO valves (PSVs) since the PSVs, unlike the completion time extension is to extend 3.4.11 Condition E (or equivalent to PORVs, cannot be isolated. plant operation at power when the allow an 8-hour completion time (CT) to When both PORVs are found ability to control normal plant operation restore one PORV for conditions where inoperable (i.e., STS LCO 3.4.11 is not significantly degraded. Therefore, a PORV is unable to re-close once Condition E or equivalent), the the proposed completion time extension challenged, but may be isolated). This associated BVs are manually closed, should not be utilized when there is extension would not apply to PORVs within one hour, to isolate both PORV reason to believe that plant pressure and that are leaking, and that cannot be paths. With none of the PORVs available level cannot be controlled within isolated by block valves, or to PORVs to open, the PSVs could be challenged operating bounds, as is the case when that are not expected to be isolable to provide overpressure protection. both the safety and non-safety following a demand. However, a challenge to the PSVs pressurizer heaters are unavailable. This Revise STS LCO 3.4.11 Required during the proposed completion time restriction should be reflected in the TS Action F.2 to allow 8 hours to restore extension to restore one PORV is bases. one BV, for conditions where the extremely unlikely and the PSVs are Finding: The requested change to associated PORV is unable to reclose. available and highly reliable (i.e., even increase the time available to take action Assessment: The risk assessment if they are challenged, they would close to restore one pressurizer heater group results (in Reference 2) indicate that the properly when the pressure is reduced

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41270 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

below their setpoint). It should be noted Plant Applicability: Applicable to all and HPSI systems, partially offsets the that overpressure protection is provided OG member plants with CE NSSS impact of SIT unavailability. by the PSVs in the design basis designs. Finding: The requested change to analyses, without any credit for PORV Limiting Condition for Operation increase the time available to take action opening for accident mitigation (in fact (LCO): All SITs shall be operable during to restore all SITs (from one to 24 hours) there are some plants built without MODES 1 and 2 as well as during for cases when two or more SITs are PORVs). For these reasons, there is MODE 3 when the pressurizer pressure inoperable is acceptable. defense-in-depth against LOCA is above [700] psia. Tier 2 Restrictions: None. accidents through the PORV and the Condition Requiring Entry into PSV paths as well as against Shutdown Required Action: When two 3.2.4 Low Pressure Safety Injection overpressure accidents during the very or more SITs are inoperable (STS LCO (STS LCO 3.5.2) short time interval when STS LCO 3.5.1 Condition D), immediate entry into The low pressure safety injection 3.4.11 Condition E is proposed to be LCO 3.0.3 is required. (LPSI) system is part of the emergency allowed with the plant operating at Proposed Modification to Shutdown core cooling system (ECCS). The power. Required Actions: Increase the time function of the ECCS is to provide core When both BVs are found inoperable available to restore one SIT before entry cooling and negative reactivity to ensure (i.e., STS LCO 3.4.11 Condition F or into LCO 3.0.3 to 24 hours. that the reactor core is protected Assessment: The risk assessment equivalent), the PORVs are placed in following certain accidents, such as results (in Reference 2) indicate that the manual control, within one hour, to LOCAs, SGTRs and loss of feedwater. proposed 24-hour completion time for ensure that they do not open There are two phases of ECCS operation: restoring one SIT before entering LCO automatically in the unlikely event they injection and recirculation. In the 3.0.3 will not lead to a significant are challenged. Therefore, there is injection phase, borated water is increase in risk and may actually defense-in-depth against small LOCA injected into the RCS via the cold legs. accidents through the PORV paths. decrease risk. The risk impact of the proposed 23-hour extension, without After the blowdown stage of the LOCA However, in the unlikely event of a stabilizes, injection flow is split equally pressure transient during the proposed credit for avoiding the transition to shutdown risk, was assessed to be well between the hot and cold legs. After the completion time extension, the PSVs RWST is depleted, the ECCS could be challenged to provide within the acceptance criteria reported in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. recirculation phase is entered as the overpressure protection. This is the ECCS suction is automatically same scenario discussed above for STS Specifically, the proposed time extension would lead to the following transferred to the containment sump. TS LCO 3.4.11 Condition E. For these require that in MODES 1, 2 and 3, with reasons, there is defense-in-depth risk increases: (1) The probability of core damage will increase by about 1E– pressurizer pressure greater than or against LOCA accidents through the equal to [1700] psia, both redundant PORV and the PSV paths as well as 8, which is less than the numerical guideline of 5E–7 for ICCDP; (2) the CDF (100% capacity) ECCS trains must be against overpressure accidents during operable. Each ECCS train consists of a the very short time interval when STS will increase by about 3E–9/year, which is significantly less than the acceptance high pressure safety injection (HPSI) LCO 3.4.11 Condition F is proposed to subsystem, a low pressure safety be allowed with the plant operating at guideline of 1E–6/year for DCDF; (3) the large early release probability will injection (LPSI) subsystem and a power. charging subsystem. The PORV paths provide an increase by about 4E–11, which is much Plant Applicability: Applicable to all alternative means of core cooling by less than the numerical guideline of 5E– OG member plants with CE NSSS feed and bleed (once-through core 8 for ICLERP; and (4) the LERF will designs. cooling) in the case of multiple increase by about 9E–12/year, which is equipment failure events that are not much less than the acceptance guideline Limiting Condition for Operation within the design basis, such as a total of 1E–7/year for DLERF. Furthermore, (LCO): Two redundant, 100% capacity loss of feedwater. The unavailability of the proposed time extension would, LPSI trains must be operable in MODES feed and bleed for core cooling, the most likely, result in a risk reduction if 1 and 2 as well as in MODE 3 when the dominant contributor to risk associated credit for avoiding the transition to pressurizer pressure is greater than or with the proposed changes to LCO shutdown risk is taken. equal to [1700] psia. 3.4.11. As discussed above, such risk is The risk impact argument is also Condition Requiring Entry into very small. supported by the following defense-in- Shutdown Required Action: When both Finding: The requested changes to depth discussion. The SITs are needed LPSI trains are inoperable, the design allow 8 hours for completing the actions primarily to mitigate large LOCAs. The basis assumptions for the large break required by TS (i.e., actions associated unavailability of two or more SITs will LOCA analyses are not met and a with STS LCO 3.4.11 Conditions E and compromise the ability of the plant to default entry into LCO 3.0.3 is required. F or equivalent) are acceptable. respond to a large LOCA. However, as Proposed Modification to Shutdown Tier 2 Restrictions: None. discussed above, even if it is Required Actions: Add separate conservatively assumed that all large condition for both LPSI trains 3.2.3 Safety Injection Tanks (STS LCO LOCAs proceed to core damage, the risk inoperable to restore at least one LPSI 3.5.1) impact is negligible (much less than the train to operable in 24 hours. In The Safety Injection Tanks (SITs) are risk estimated to incur during plant addition, with the proposed condition pressurized passive injection devices transition to shutdown). On the other taken with the proposed changes to whose primary safety function is to hand, the unavailability of two or more HPSI discussed below, the existing inject large quantities of borated water SITs may alter the progression of some condition (STS LCO 3.5.2 Condition D) into the reactor vessel during the smaller break size LOCAs and the extent of ‘‘Less than 100% of the ECCS flow blowdown phase of a large LOCA and of core damage. However, their impact equivalent to a single OPERABLE train to provide inventory to help accomplish on the core damage potential is available’’ will no longer be required the refill phase that follows the negligible. In addition, long term core since that condition will be addressed blowdown phase. cooling, provided via the plant’s LPSI by the conditions for two HPSI

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41271

subsystems inoperable or two LPSI control, and core heat removal for HPSI trains are inoperable, a default subsystems inoperable. system operations such as safety entry into LCO 3.0.3 is required. Assessment: The risk assessment injection and recirculation, hot leg Proposed Modification to Shutdown results (in Reference 2) indicate that the injection and once through core cooling Required Actions: Increase the time for proposed 24-hour completion time for to mitigate the consequences of LOCAs, restoring one HPSI pump or subsystem, restoring one LPSI train will not lead to SLB, and SGTR events. The licensees before initiating shutdown per LCO a significant increase in risk and may should also discuss the safety and 3.0.3, to four hours. actually decrease risk. The risk impact nonsafety related accident mitigation Assessment: The risk assessment of the proposed completion time systems, and show that, for a condition results (in Reference 2) indicate that the extension, without credit for avoiding when the ECCS flow is less than 100% proposed 4-hour completion time for the transition to shutdown risk, was of the ECCS flow equivalent to a single the actions required by TS before assessed to be well within the OPERABLE train, alternative flow entering LCO 3.0.3 will not lead to a acceptance criteria reported in injection systems and backup accident significant increase in risk and, actually, Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. management strategies are available and may decrease risk by avoiding the risk Specifically, the proposed completion effective. Licensees should also list associated with the transition to time extension would lead to the specific compensatory measures shutdown. The risk impact of the following risk increases: (1) The (including a description of pertinent proposed completion time extension, probability of core damage will increase operating procedures, maintenance without credit for avoiding the by about 1E–7, which is less than the process and training programs) and transition to shutdown risk, was numerical guideline of 5E–7 for ICCDP; contingency plans with acceptable assessed to be in agreement with the (2) the CDF will increase by about 2E– justification for the proposed deletion of acceptance guidelines reported in 8/year, which is significantly less than STS LCO 3.5.2 Condition D. Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. the acceptance guideline of 1E–6/year Finding: The requested change to Specifically, the proposed completion for DCDF; (3) the large early release increase the time available to restore an time extension would lead to the probability will increase by about 4E– LPSI train to operable is acceptable. The following risk increases: (1) An ICCDP 10, which is much less than the proposed change to delete STS LCO of 1.7E–6 for plants with PORVs and numerical guideline of 5E–8 for ICLERP; 3.5.2 Condition D needs to be 1.1E–6 for plants without PORVs, which and (4) the LERF will increase by about adequately justified on a plant-specific are close to the numerical guideline of 8E–11/year, which is much less than the basis. 5E–7 for ICCDP used in RG 1.177; (2) a acceptance guideline of 1E–7/year for Tier 2 Restrictions: None. DCDF of 3.5E–7/year for plants with DLERF. Furthermore, the proposed PORVs and 2.1E–7 for plants without 3.2.5 High Pressure Safety Injection completion time extension would, most PORVs, which are significantly less than (STS LCO 3.5.2) likely, result in a risk reduction if credit the acceptance guideline of 1E–6/year for avoiding the transition to shutdown The high pressure safety injection for DCDF; (3) an ICLERP of about 4E–8 risk is taken. system is part of the ECCS. The function for plants with PORVs and less than 3E– The risk impact argument is also of the ECCS is to provide core cooling 8 for plants without PORVs, which are supported by the following defense-in- and negative reactivity to ensure that less than the numerical guideline of 5E– depth discussion. The primary impact the reactor core is protected following 8 for ICLERP; and (4) a DLERF of about of the unavailability of the LPSI system certain accidents, such as LOCAs, 8E–9/year for plants with PORVs and will be the reduction in the capability SGTRs and loss of feedwater. There are about 5E–9 for plants without PORVs, of the plant to provide RCS inventory two phases of ECCS operation: injection which are much less than the makeup to mitigate a large LOCA. and recirculation. In the injection phase, acceptance guideline of 1E–7/year for However, the unavailability of the LPSI borated water is injected into the RCS DLERF. Furthermore, the proposed time system will impair the ability of the via the cold legs. After the blowdown extension may actually be risk neutral plant to maneuver to shutdown cooling. stage of the LOCA stabilizes injection or result in a decrease in risk if credit Therefore, the proposed 24-hour flow is split equally between the hot for avoiding the transition to shutdown completion time to repair one LPSI train and cold legs. After the RWST is risk is taken. is reasonable due to the very small depleted, the ECCS recirculation phase The risk impact argument is also incremental risk associated with the is entered as the ECCS suction is supported by the following defense-in- continued plant operation at power and automatically transferred to the depth discussion. The subject LCO the inadvisability of a plant shutdown containment sump. TS require that in requires the operability of a number of without the LPSI pumps which are MODES 1, 2 and 3, with pressurizer independent subsystems. In many needed for shutdown cooling. pressure greater than or equal to [1700] instances due to the redundancy of STS LCO 3.5.2 Condition D requires psia, both redundant (100% capacity) trains and the diversity of subsystems, that for a condition where the ECCS ECCS trains must be operable. Each the inoperability of one component in a flow is less than 100% of the ECCS flow ECCS train consists of a high pressure train does not necessarily render the assumed in the LOCA analysis. WCAP– safety injection subsystem, a low HPSI incapable of performing its 16125–NP proposed to delete this pressure safety injection subsystem and function. Neither does the inoperability condition because it would no longer be a charging subsystem. of two different components, each in a necessary, based on the new conditions Plant Applicability: Applicable to all different train, necessarily result in a for two HPSI trains or two LPSI trains OG member plants with CE NSSS loss of function for the ECCS. Examples inoperable. The NRC staff has designs. of typical inoperabilities would include concluded that an adequate basis has Limiting Condition for Operation the unavailability of a single header not been provided to justify the deletion (LCO): In MODES 1 and 2 as well as in injection valve or degradation of HPSI of STS LCO 3.5.2 Condition D. MODE 3 when the pressurizer pressure delivery curves below minimum design Specifically, licensees should discuss is greater than or equal to [1700] psia, basis levels. The proposed completion the functions of the HPSI and LPSI both trains of HPSI must be operable. time extension allows for potential systems in terms of reactivity control, Condition Requiring Entry into resolution of minor HPSI system RCS inventory control, RCS pressure Shutdown Required Action: When both inoperabilities and provides time to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41272 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

prepare for a controlled plant shutdown in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. basis accident (DBA) conditions. Hence, without increasing the plant’s risk Specifically, the proposed time leakage would be further reduced. significantly. extension would lead to the following While in MODE 4, the probability of Finding: The requested change to conservatively assessed risk increases: LOCA or MSLB is significantly reduced allow four hours to resolve the (1) The large early release probability from MODE 1 levels. The implied inoperability and restore one pump or will increase by about 9E–8, which is licensing basis assumption that MODE 5 subsystem of HPSI capability before close to the numerical guideline of 5E– is inherently of lower operational risk required to commence a plant shutdown 8 for ICLERP; and (2) the LERF will than MODE 4 is not supported by risk per LCO 3.0.3, is acceptable. increase by about 2E–8/year, which is evaluations (Reference 8). MODE 5 risks Tier 2 Restrictions: None. significantly less than the acceptance are either about equal to or likely greater 3.2.6 Containment (STS LCO 3.6.1) guideline of 1E–7/year for DLERF. than equivalent risks in MODE 4, and Furthermore, the proposed completion therefore produce radiation releases to The requirements stated in this LCO time extension may actually be risk containment on par with those of MODE define the performance of the neutral or result in a decrease in risk if 4. Thus, remaining in MODE 4, while containment as a fission barrier. credit for avoiding the transition to the containment excess leakage Specifically, LCO 3.6.1 requires that the shutdown risk is taken. condition is being corrected, is an containment maximum leakage rate be The proposed changes apply to appropriate action. limited in accordance with 10 CFR part containment conditions where The STS LCO 3.6.1 requirement that 50 Appendix J. Other LCOs place containment integrity is essentially the plant be brought to MODE 5 end additional restrictions on containment maintained and adequate ECCS net state is not based on consideration of air locks and containment isolation positive suction head (NPSH) is risks. Accidents initiated from MODE 4 valves. The integrated effect of these expected following an event. are far less challenging to the TSs is to ensure that the containment Containment ‘‘leakage’’ at or near design containment than those initiated from leakage is well controlled within limits basis levels is not explicitly modeled in MODE 1. The lower energy content in which assure that the post accident PRAs. The PRA implicitly requires that MODE 4 results in containment whole body and thyroid dose limits of containment ‘‘gross’’ integrity must be pressures and potential leakage 10 CFR 100.11 or 10 CFR 50.67, as available to ensure adequate NPSH for approximately one half of that applicable, are satisfied following a ECCS pumps. Even though the PRA associated with MODE 1 releases. Maximum Hypothetical Accident models do not consider that Furthermore, by having the plant in a (MHA) initiated from full power. containment ‘‘leakage’’ contributes to a shutdown condition in advance, fission Inability to meet this leakage limit large early release, the assessed risk product releases are significantly renders the containment inoperable. impact of the proposed completion time reduced. Thus, while leakage Plant Applicability: Applicable to all extension is based on the assumption restrictions should be maintained, OG member plants with CE NSSS that all core damage events will proceed MODE 4 leakage in excess of that designs. to a large early release. allowed in MODE 1 can be safely Limiting Condition for Operation The requirement for an immediate allowed for a limited time sufficient to (LCO): Containment shall be operable in (within one hour) shutdown is based on resolve the inoperability and return the MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. the philosophy that inoperability of the plant to power operation. Condition Requiring Entry into containment is a violation of the plant From a deterministic perspective, Shutdown Required Action: design basis and, therefore, a plant MODE 4 with SG heat removal would Containment is declared to be shutdown must be initiated as soon as maintain more mitigating systems inoperable due to excessive leakage, possible. The selection of one hour was available, as compared to MODE 5, to including leakage from air locks and based on the requirement for respond to loss of RCS inventory or isolation valves, for a time period ‘‘immediate shutdown’’ and the decay heat removal events and therefore greater than one hour. If the assumption that one hour is adequate reduce the overall public risk. In MODE containment is not restored to operable time for operators to effect shutdown 4, the Safety Injection Actuation Signal status within one hour, a plant plans. The goal was to place the plant (SIAS) and the Containment Isolation shutdown is required. in a condition where the health and Actuation Signal (CIAS) will be Proposed Modification to Shutdown safety of the public could be better available to aid the operators in Required Actions: Define a specific assured. No specific risk assessments responding to events that threaten the action to allow 8 hours to restore an were performed. In fact, it is more reactor or containment integrity. inoperable containment to operable. appropriate from the health and safety Therefore, the proposed TS end state Allow MODE 4 to become a designated objective viewpoint to consider the risk change does not adversely affect the end state for correcting containment of continued plant operation as well as plant defense-in-depth. impairments for conditions where the that introduced by the shutdown. In Finding: The requested changes to (1) containment leakage is excessive due to consideration of the total plant risk, it increase the time available to take action reasons other than the inoperability of is more risk beneficial to allow a small to restore the containment to 8 hours two or more containment isolation increase in risk at power to resolve a TS and (2) allow MODE 4 as the repair end valves (CIVs) in the same flow paths. inoperability rather than to undertake state, are acceptable. Assessment: The risk assessment an immediate (within one hour) Tier 2 Restrictions: None. results (in Reference 2) indicate that the shutdown. proposed 8-hour completion time for In addition to the completion time 3.2.7 Containment Spray System (STS restoring an inoperable containment to extension, it is also proposed that LCO 3.6.6 A) operable status will not lead to a MODE 4 be allowed as the end state to The containment spray (CS) and significant increase in risk and may repair the containment. This is containment cooling (CC) systems actually decrease risk. The risk impact supported by the following arguments. provide containment atmosphere of the proposed completion time If accidents were to occur in MODE 4, cooling to limit post accident pressure extension was assessed to be well resulting containment pressures would and temperature in containment to less within the acceptance criteria reported be significantly less than the design than the design values. For most CE

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41273

NSSS design plants the containment risk if credit for avoiding the transition for containment heat removal, are sprays represent a portion of a diverse to shutdown risk is taken. acceptable. The requested change and redundant heat removal system. In When at least one CARC train is described in Table 5.2.3–2 of WCAP– addition to containment heat removal, available for containment heat removal, 16125–NP, that is, STS LCO 3.6.6.A CSs enhance post-accident fission the risk impact in terms of CDF and would be revised to allow shutdown product removal. LERF is insignificant. However, credit is modes of MODE 3 in 6 hours and MODE Plant Applicability: Applicable to all taken for post accident fission product 5 in 36 hours versus the current OG member plants with CE NSSS removal by the CS system. The radiation requirement of immediate entry into designs. release ‘‘non-LER’’ risk impact LCO 3.0.3 if the Required Action and Limiting Condition for Operation associated with the proposed increase of associated Completion Time is not met, (LCO): Two containment spray trains the time available for restoring one CS was not justified in the topical report. and two containment cooling (CAC or train to 72 hours was conservatively Therefore, the proposed change is not CARC) trains shall be operable in assessed. Specifically, the proposed acceptable without further justification. MODES 1, 2, 3 and [4]. completion time extension would lead Tier 2 Restrictions: None. Condition Requiring Entry into to the following ‘‘non-LER’’ risk 3.2.8 Iodine Cleanup System (ICS) Shutdown Required Action: increases: (1) The probability of a ‘‘non- (STS LCO 3.6.10) Inoperability of both CS trains or any LER’’ release during the completion combination of three or more trains time extension would increase by about The purpose of the ICS is to remove inoperable (STS LCO 3.6.6.A Condition 8E–7; and (2) the ‘‘non-LER’’ frequency elemental iodine from the post-accident F), immediate entry into LCO 3.0.3 is would increase by 1.6E–7/year. These containment atmosphere. These systems required. increases in ‘‘non-LER’’ risk are slightly were initially incorporated into plants Proposed Modification to Shutdown above the values used in the criteria in the belief that radiological iodine Required Actions: (1) Increase the time discussed in Section 3.1 of this report. releases would be predominantly in available for restoring one CS train to 72 However, such increases in ‘‘non-LER’’ elemental form. However, extensive hours when at least one CARC train is risk are still comparable in magnitude to research has indicated that most iodine available for containment heat removal; what is considered acceptable for will be released in the form of Cesium (2) increase the time available for increases in the much higher Iodine (CsI) particulates. Consequently, restoring one CS train to 12 hours when consequence risks associated with core the actual impact of system two trains of the CARC system is damage and large early release. functionality on actual public doses is unavailable for containment heat Furthermore, the proposed completion negligible. ICS consists of two 100% removal. Based on Table 5.2.3–2 of time extension is definitely risk capacity trains. WCAP–16125–NP, STS LCO 3.6.6.A beneficial when the averted core Plant Applicability: Calvert Cliffs 1 & would be revised to allow shutdown damage and large early release risks 2, St Lucie 1 & 2. modes of MODE 3 in 6 hours and MODE associated with avoiding plant Limiting Condition for Operation 5 in 36 hours versus the current shutdown are taken into consideration. (LCO): Two ICS trains shall be operable requirement of immediate entry into In addition to the risk argument, the in MODES 1, 2, 3 & 4. LCO 3.0.3 if the Required Action and proposed 72-hour completion time is Condition Requiring Entry into LCO associated Completion Time not met. selected for compatibility with 3.0.3: Both ICS trains inoperable. Assessment: The risk assessment improved standard technical Currently a default entry into LCO 3.0.3 results (in Reference 2) indicate that the specification (STS) LCO 3.6.6B. STS is required. proposed 12-hour completion time for LCO 3.6.6B calls for a Completion Time Proposed Modification to Shutdown restoring one CS train when two trains of 72 hours when two CS trains are Required Actions: Add a condition to (1) of the CARC system is unavailable for inoperable (Condition C) and is allow 24 hours to restore one train to containment heat removal before applicable to conditions where the operable status, and (2) allow MODE 4 entering LCO 3.0.3 will not lead to a sprays are not credited for fission as the final end state for repairing the significant increase in risk and may product removal. Inoperability of the CS inoperable system. actually decrease risk. The risk impact or CARC will degrade the capability of Assessment: The risk assessment of the proposed completion time the plant to respond to a containment results (in Reference 2) indicate that the extension was assessed to be well threat. However, provided the other proposed 24-hour completion time for within the acceptance criteria reported system is available the plant remains restoring one train of ICS will not lead in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. capable of controlling pressure. The loss to a significant increase in risk and may Specifically, the proposed completion of sprays will expose some plant actually decrease risk. The proposed time extension would lead to the equipment to beyond environmental completion time extension will not following risk increases: (1) The qualification temperature limits should contribute to any risk increases, in terms probability of core damage will increase a MSLB occur. However, the probability of core damage and large early release. by less than 7E–7 which is close to the of such an event during the proposed The radiation release ‘‘non-LER’’ risk numerical guideline of 5E–7 for ICCDP completion time extension is very small impact associated with the proposed used in RG 1.177; (2) the CDF will (about 1E–3/year or less than 1E–5 per time increase was conservatively increase by about 1.4E–7/year 71 hours). Furthermore, the ability of assessed. Specifically, the proposed (acceptance criteria for DCDF about 1E– the plant to cope with a MSLB event is completion time extension would lead 6/year); (3) the large early release not compromised. to the following ‘‘non-LER’’ risk probability during the condition will Finding: The requested changes to (1) increases: (1) The probability of a ‘‘non- increase by about 1E–8 (acceptance increase the time available for restoring LER’’ release during the completion criteria for ICLERP is 5E–8); and (4) the one CS train to 72 hours when at least time extension would increase by about LERF will increase by about 2.5E–9/year one CARC train is available for 2.6E–7; and (2) the ‘‘non-LER’’ (acceptance criteria for DLERF is 1E–7/ containment heat removal; and (2) frequency would increase by about year). Furthermore, the proposed increase the time available for restoring 5.0E–8/year. These increases in ‘‘non- completion time extension may actually one CS train to 12 hours when two LER’’ risk, which are comparable in be risk neutral or result in a decrease in trains of the CARC system is unavailable magnitude to what is considered

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41274 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

acceptable for core damage and large 3.2.9 Shield Building Exhaust Air to repair the inoperable system than early release risk increases, are very Cleanup System (STS LCO 3.6.13) proceeding to MODE 5. This is due to small. Furthermore, the proposed The shield building exhaust air the fact that there are more systems completion time extension is risk cleanup system (SBEACS) provides available in MODE 4 than in MODE 5 beneficial when the averted core radionuclide removal capability for to mitigate accidents initiated at damage and large early release risks fission products leaked into the shield shutdown and the risk of transition associated with avoiding plant building. The SBEACS consists of two between MODES 4 and 5 is avoided. The proposed changes are also shutdown are taken into consideration. separate and redundant trains. Each The proposed change to allow MODE supported by the following qualitative train includes a heater, cooling coils, a 4 as the final end state for repairing the discussion. The SBEACS is required to prefilter, a moisture separator, a high inoperable system is supported by risk ensure that the radioactive material efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, assessments (Reference 8) which leaking from the primary containment of indicated that, in general, there is less an activated charcoal absorber section a dual containment into the Shield risk associated with staying in MODE 4 for removal of radionuclides and a fan. Building (secondary containment) to repair the inoperable system than Ductwork, valves and/or dampers and following a DBA are filtered and proceeding to MODE 5. This is due to instrumentation also form part of the absorbed prior to exhausting to the the fact that there are more systems system. environment. Loss of the SBEACS could available in MODE 4 than in MODE 5 Plant Applicability: St Lucie 1 & 2, cause site boundary doses, in the event to mitigate accidents initiated at Waterford 3 and Millstone 2. of a DBA, to exceed the values given in shutdown and the risk of transition Limiting Condition for Operation the licensing basis. However, between MODES 4 and 5 is avoided. (LCO): Two SBEACS trains shall be containment ‘‘leakage’’ at or near design The ICS functions together with the operable in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. basis levels is not explicitly modeled in containment spray and the containment Condition Requiring Entry into PRAs. PRAs implicitly require that cooling systems following a design basis Shutdown Required Action:Both containment ‘‘gross’’ integrity must be accident (DBA) that causes failure of the SBEACS trains inoperable. Currently a available to ensure NPSH for ECCS fuel cladding, and release of radioactive default entry into LCO 3.0.3 is required. pumps. In the PRA Level 2 models, material (principally iodine) to the Proposed Modification to Shutdown containment ‘‘leakage’’ is not containment. The ICS is specifically Required Actions: Add a condition to (1) considered to contribute to large early designed to respond to the maximum allow 24 hours to take action for both release. If accidents were to occur in hypothetical accident with a large SBEACS trains unavailable, and (2) MODE 4, resulting containment assumed contribution due to elemental allow MODE 4 as the final end state for pressures would be significantly less iodine. The DBAs that result in a release repairing the inoperable system. than the DBA conditions. Hence, of radioactive iodine within Assessment: The risk assessment leakage would be further reduced. In containment are LOCA and MSLB or a results (in Reference 2) indicate that the addition, while in MODE 4, the control element assembly (CEA) ejection proposed 24-hour completion time for probability of LOCA and MSLB is accident. In the analysis for each of restoring one train of SBEACS will not significantly reduced from MODE 1 these accidents, it is assumed that lead to a significant increase in risk and levels. By keeping the plant in MODE 4, adequate containment leak tightness is may actually decrease risk. The operator actions required for entry into present at event initiation to limit proposed completion time extension shutdown cooling and which introduce potential leakage to the environment. will not contribute to any risk increases, potential containment bypass risks are Additionally, it is assumed that the in terms of core damage and large early avoided. amount of radioactive iodine release is release. The radiation release ‘‘non- Finding: The requested changes to (1) limited by reducing the iodine LER’’ risk impact associated with the increase the time available to restore concentration in the containment proposed time increase was one SBEACS train to 24 hours and (2) atmosphere via use of containment conservatively assessed. Specifically, allow MODE 4 as the final end state, for sprays. The unavailability of the ICS the proposed completion time extension cases when both SBEACS trains are will have no significant impact on would lead to the following ‘‘non-LER’’ inoperable, are acceptable. anticipated radiological releases to the risk increases: (1) The probability of a Tier 2 Restrictions: None. public or the control room. This is due ‘‘non-LER’’ release during the 3.2.10 Control Room Emergency Air to the fact that: (1) Iodine releases are completion time extension would Cleanup System (STS LCO 3.7.11) predominantly particulate and removal increase by about 2.6E–7; and (2) the via sprays and precipitation is effective, ‘‘non-LER’’ frequency would increase by The control room emergency air (2) availability of elemental iodine is about 5.0E–8/year. These increases in cleanup system (CREACS) provides a low so that ICS has limited utility, and ‘‘non-LER’’ risk, which are comparable protected environment from which (3) containment leak tightness in magnitude to what is considered operators can control the plant significantly limits potential releases. acceptable for core damage and large following an uncontrolled release of Significant release events that early release risk increases, are very radioactivity, chemicals or toxic gas. contribute to large early release, such as small. Furthermore, the proposed Alternate designations of this system containment bypass and SGTR with loss completion time extension is definitely include the acronyms CREACUS, of secondary isolation events, will risk beneficial when the averted core CREACS, CREVAS, CREVS, or CREAFS. bypass these filters regardless of their damage and large early release risks The current TS require operability of availability. associated with avoiding plant CREACS from MODE 1 through MODE Finding: The requested changes to (1) shutdown are taken into consideration. 4 to support operator response to a DBA. increase the time available to restore The proposed change to allow MODE The system’s operability in MODES 5 one ICS train to 24 hours and (2) allow 4 as the final end state for repairing the and 6 may also be required at some MODE 4 as the final end state, for cases inoperable system is supported by risk plants for chemical and toxic gas when both ICS trains are inoperable, are assessments (Reference 8) which concerns. The CREACS is needed to acceptable. indicated that, in general, there is less protect the control room (CR) in a wide Tier 2 Restrictions: None. risk associated with staying in MODE 4 variety of circumstances.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41275

Plant Applicability: Applicable to all not provide justification for modifying completion time increase was OG member plants with CE NSSS Condition F Required Action from conservatively assessed. Specifically, designs. ‘‘Enter LCO 3.0.3’’ to an end state of the proposed completion time extension Limiting Condition for Operation MODE 4. would lead to the following ‘‘non-LER’’ (LCO): Two CREACS trains shall be Finding: The requested change to risk increases: (1) The probability of a operable in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4 and increase the time available to take action ‘‘non-LER’’ release during the during movement of [recently] to restore one CREACS train to 24 hours completion time extension would irradiated fuel assemblies in MODES [5 for the radiation protection function increase by about 2.6E–7; and (2) the and 6]. only is acceptable. The requested ‘‘non-LER’’ frequency would increase by Condition Requiring Entry into change to allow MODE 4 as the final about 5.0E–8/year. These increases in Shutdown Required Action: Both trains end state, for cases when both CREACS ‘‘non-LER’’ risk, which are comparable inoperable for conditions other than trains are inoperable, is not justified in in magnitude to what is considered inoperable control room boundary in WCAP–16125–NP and is not acceptable. acceptable for core damage and large MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4. Explicit entry Tier 2 Restrictions: None. early release risk increases, are very into LCO 3.0.3 required (STS LCO 3.2.11 Control Room Emergency Air small. Furthermore, the proposed 3.7.11 Condition F). completion time extension is definitely Proposed Modification to Shutdown Temperature Control System (STS LCO 3.7.12) risk beneficial when the averted core Required Actions: (1) Increase the time damage and large early release risks available to take action to 24 hours (or The control room emergency air associated with avoiding plant the time to reach 5 REM, which may be temperature control system (CREATCS) shutdown are taken into consideration. less than 24 hours, from the radiation provides temperature control for the CR The proposed change to allow MODE field associated with main steam safety following isolation of the CR. The 4 as the final end state for repairing the valves lifting concurrent with a SGTR) CREATCS consists of two independent, inoperable system is not justified. STS for the cases in which both CREACS redundant trains that provide cooling LCO 3.7.12 Condition E has an explicit trains are unavailable, and (2) allow and heating of recirculated CR air. Each LCO 3.0.3 entry. WCAP–16125–NP does MODE 4 as the final end state for train consists of heating coils, cooling not provide justification for modifying repairing the inoperable system. This coils, instrumentation and controls to Condition E Required Action from modification applies to the radiation provide for CR temperature control. ‘‘Enter LCO 3.0.3’’ to an end state of protection function only. Site specific Plant Applicability: Applicable to MODE 4. validation is necessary to support Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2, Fort Calhoun, extension to toxic gas and chemical Palisades, PVNGS 1, 2, & 3, Waterford Several short term actions associated protection functions. 3 and ANO 2. It is noted that cooling for with cooling the CR may be Assessment: The risk assessment the St Lucie units are included in the air implemented to mitigate risk results (in Reference 2) indicate that the cleanup system discussed in TS 3.7.11 consequences further. These actions proposed 24-hour completion time for but the cooling system arguments include use of portable fans and restoring one train of CREACS before contained in this section apply to St propping open doors. Several plants entering LCO 3.0.3 will not lead to a Lucie Units 1 & 2. have such actions in procedures. significant increase in risk and may Limiting Condition for Operation Finding: The requested change to actually decrease risk. The proposed (LCO): Two CREATCS trains shall be increase the time available to take action completion time extension will not operable in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4 and to restore one CREATCS train to 24 contribute to any risk increases, in terms during movement of [recently] hours is acceptable. The requested of core damage and large early release. irradiated fuel assemblies in MODES [5 change to allow MODE 4 as the final The radiation release ‘‘non-LER’’ risk and 6]. end state, for cases when both trains are impact associated with the proposed Condition Requiring Entry into inoperable, is not justified in WCAP– time increase was conservatively Shutdown Required Action: Both trains 16125–NP and is not acceptable. assessed. Specifically, the proposed inoperable in MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4 Tier 2 Restrictions: None. completion time extension would lead requires an explicit LCO 3.0.3 entry 3.2.12 Emergency Core Cooling System to the following ‘‘non-LER’’ risk (STS LCO 3.7.12 Condition E). (ECCS) Pump Room Exhaust Air increases: (1) The probability of a ‘‘non- Proposed Modification to Shutdown Cleanup System (PREACS) (STS LCO LER’’ release during the completion Required Actions: Modify STS LCO 3.7.13) time extension would increase by about 3.7.12 Condition E to (1) increase the 2.6E–7; and (2) the ‘‘non-LER’’ time available to take action under LCO The ECCS pump room exhaust air frequency would increase by about 3.0.3 to 24 hours for the cases in which cleanup system (ECCS PREACS) is an 5.0E–8/year. These increases in ‘‘non- both CREATCS trains are unavailable, emergency system that filters air from LER’’ risk, which are comparable in and (2) allow MODE 4 as the final end the area of the active Engineered Safety magnitude to what is considered state for repairing the inoperable Features (ESF) components during the acceptable for core damage and large system. recirculation phase of a LOCA. The early release risk increases, are very Assessment: The risk assessment ECCS PREACS consists of two small. Furthermore, the proposed results (in Reference 2) indicate that the independent, redundant trains of completion time extension is definitely proposed 24-hour completion time for equipment that provide filtering of air in risk beneficial when the averted core restoring one train of CREATCS before the ECCS pump rooms during post- damage and large early release risks entering LCO 3.0.3 will not lead to a LOCA recirculation cooling. associated with avoiding plant significant increase in risk and may Plant Applicability: Calvert Cliffs 1 & shutdown are taken into consideration. actually decrease risk. The proposed 2, St Lucie 1 & 2, Waterford 3. It is noted The proposed change to allow MODE completion time extension will not that at Waterford 3 the functions of the 4 as the final end state for repairing the contribute to any risk increases, in terms ECCS PREACS and Penetration Room inoperable system is not justified. STS of core damage and large early release. Exhaust Air Cleanup System (PREACS), LCO 3.7.11 Condition F has an explicit The radiation release ‘‘non-LER’’ risk which is discussed below under LCO LCO 3.0.3 entry. WCAP–16125–NP does impact associated with the proposed 3.7.15, are combined within the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41276 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Controlled Ventilation Area System hours and (2) allow MODE 4 as the final The proposed change to allow MODE (CVAS) TS. end state, for cases when both trains are 4 as the final end state for repairing the Limiting Condition for Operation inoperable, are acceptable. inoperable system is supported by risk (LCO): Two ECCS PREACS trains shall Tier 2 Restrictions: None. assessments (Reference 8) which be operable in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. 3.2.13 Penetration Room Exhaust Air indicated that, in general, there is less Condition Requiring Entry into risk associated with staying in MODE 4 Shutdown Required Action: Both trains Cleanup System (PREACS) (STS LCO 3.7.15) to repair the inoperable system than inoperable, default entry into LCO 3.0.3. proceeding to MODE 5. This is due to Proposed Modification to Shutdown The Penetration Room Exhaust Air the fact that there are more systems Required Actions: (1) Increase the time Cleanup System (PREACS) filters air available in MODE 4 than in MODE 5 available to restore one train to 24 from the penetration area between the to mitigate accidents initiated at hours, and (2) allow MODE 4 as the containment and the auxiliary building. shutdown and the risk of transition final end state for repairing the The PREACS consists of two between MODES 4 and 5 is avoided. inoperable system. independent, redundant trains. Each Finding: The requested changes to (1) Assessment: The risk assessment train consists of a heater, demister or increase the time available to take action results (in Reference 2) indicate that the prefilter, HEPA filter, activated charcoal to restore one PREACS train to 24 hours proposed 24-hour completion time for absorber and a fan. and (2) allow MODE 4 as the final end restoring one train of ECCS PREACS Plant Applicability: Calvert Cliffs 1 & state, for cases when both trains are will not lead to a significant increase in 2, and Waterford 3. It is noted that at inoperable, are acceptable. risk and may actually decrease risk. The Waterford 3 the functions of the Tier 2 Restrictions: None. proposed completion time extension PREACS and ECCS PREACS, which is will not contribute to any risk increases, discussed above under LCO 3.7.13, are 3.3 Summary and Conclusions in terms of core damage and large early combined within the Controlled The above requested changes are release. The radiation release ‘‘non- Ventilation Area System (CVAS) TS. found acceptable by the staff. The staff LER’’ risk impact associated with the Limiting Condition for Operation approval applies only to operation as proposed completion time increase was (LCO): Two PREACS trains shall be described and acceptably justified in conservatively assessed. Specifically, operable in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. References 2 and 8. To be consistent the proposed completion time extension Condition Requiring Entry into with the staff’s approval, any licensee would lead to the following ‘‘non-LER’’ Shutdown Required Action: Both trains requesting to operate in accordance with risk increases: (1) The probability of a inoperable for reasons other than an TSTF–426, as approved in this safety ‘‘non-LER’’ release during the inoperable penetration room boundary, evaluation, should commit to operate in completion time extension would default entry into LCO 3.0.3 is required. accordance with WCAP–16446–NP, Rev increase by about 1.1E–7; and (2) the Proposed Modification to Shutdown 0, ‘‘Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO ‘‘non-LER’’ frequency would increase by Required Actions: (1) Increase the time 3.0.3 Implementation Guidance (PA– about 2.0E–8/year. These increases in available to restore one train to 24 RMCS–0196),’’ June 2005, which ‘‘non-LER’’ risk, which are comparable hours, and (2) allow MODE 4 as the includes a requirement for the licensee in magnitude to what is considered final end state for repairing the to commit to adhere to the guidance of acceptable for core damage and large inoperable system. the revised Section 11 of NUMARC–93– early release risk increases, are very Assessment: The risk assessment 01, Revision 3. The implementation small. Furthermore, the proposed results (in Reference 2) indicate that the guidance includes alternative systems completion time extension is definitely proposed 24-hour completion time for that must be operable and compensating risk beneficial when the averted core restoring one train of PREACS will not measures for the systems included in damage and large early release risks lead to a significant increase in risk and TSTF–426. The licensees shall update associated with avoiding plant may actually decrease risk. The relevant operating procedures, shutdown are taken into consideration. proposed completion time extension maintenance procedures, and training The proposed change to allow MODE will not contribute to any risk increases, programs to reflect this change. 4 as the final end state for repairing the in terms of core damage and large early The required action for conditions inoperable system is supported by risk release. The radiation release ‘‘non- that imply a loss of function, is entry assessments (Reference 8) which LER’’ risk impact associated with the into LCO 3.0.3. Currently, upon entering indicated that, in general, there is less proposed completion time increase was LCO 3.0.3, one hour is allowed to risk associated with staying in MODE 4 conservatively assessed. Specifically, prepare for an orderly shutdown before to repair the inoperable system than the proposed completion time extension initiating a change in plant operation. proceeding to MODE 5. This is due to would lead to the following ‘‘non-LER’’ The OG is proposing to define or modify the fact that there are more systems risk increases: (1) The probability of a various TS Conditions to accommodate available in MODE 4 than in MODE 5 ‘‘non-LER’’ release during the extension of the currently required time to mitigate accidents initiated at completion time extension would of one hour to initiate plant shutdown shutdown and the risk of transition increase by about 2.6E–7; and (2) the for member plants with CE NSSS between MODES 4 and 5 is avoided. ‘‘non-LER’’ frequency would increase by designs. The proposed extension, The unavailability of the ECCS about 5.0E–8/year. These increases in related to specific systems or PREACS only impacts radiation releases ‘‘non-LER’’ risk, which are comparable components, is based on the system’s to the public when the ECCS in magnitude to what is considered risk significance. In addition, WCAP– recirculation is in progress during a acceptable for core damage and large 16125–NP provides a proposal to LOCA. Since successful recirculation early release risk increases, are very modify several Required Action also implies successful event mitigation, small. Furthermore, the proposed statements, related to specific systems the releases this system is designed to completion time extension is definitely or components, to allow for a MODE 4 mitigate are relatively low. risk beneficial when the averted core (hot shutdown) end state for repair Finding: The requested changes to (1) damage and large early release risks purposes of two-train redundant increase the time available to take action associated with avoiding plant systems that do not have explicit LCO to restore one ECCS–PREACS train to 24 shutdown are taken into consideration. 3.0.3 entry requirements, when the time

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41277

requirements of the action statement for equipment in addition to that associated 4.2 Each licensee should make a staying at power cannot be met. with the change were to be taken out of regulatory commitment to follow The intent of the proposed TS service simultaneously; Section 11 of NUMARC–93–01, changes is to provide needed flexibility • The third tier involves the Revision 3. in the performance of corrective implementation of the proposed The licensee has made a regulatory maintenance during power operation to changes in conjunction with a commitment to follow the fully evaluate the situation or restore configuration risk management program implementation guidance of WCAP– loss of function and at the same time (CRMP). 16446–NP and Section 11 of NUMARC– enhance overall plant safety by: The impact of each proposed system- 93–01, Revision 3. • Avoiding unnecessary unscheduled specific TS change on defense-in-depth The NRC staff finds that reasonable plant shutdowns, controls for the implementation and for • was evaluated in conjunction with the Minimizing plant transitions and risk assessment results. Due to the subsequent evaluation of proposed associated transition and realignment nature of the plant conditions associated changes pertaining to the above risks, regulatory commitment(s) can be • with the proposed TS changes (i.e., loss Providing increased flexibility in of a system’s or component’s function), provided by the licensee’s scheduling and performing maintenance the redundancy and diversity typically administrative processes, including its and surveillance activities, and associated with ensuring the commitment management program. The • Providing explicit guidance in areas deterministic aspect of defense-in-depth NRC staff has agreed that NEI 99–04, that currently does not exist. position is not always strictly possible. Revision 0, ‘‘Guidelines for Managing It should be noted that many of the NRC Commitment Changes,’’ provides In these cases defense-in-depth was proposed TS changes affect the existing reasonable guidance for the control of considered by identifying specific plant shutdown requirements for plant regulatory commitments made to the restrictions to the implementation of the conditions where the plant operation is NRC staff (see Regulatory Issue proposed changes. Such restrictions aim not in explicit compliance with the Summary 2000–17, ‘‘Managing at (1) controlling the outage time for plant design basis. The proposed actions Regulatory Commitments Made by related equipment, (2) restricting provide a risk-informed process for Power Reactor Licensees to the NRC activities which may challenge the establishing shutdown priorities aiming Staff,’’ dated September 21, 2000). The unavailable systems or functions, (3) at reducing overall plant risk and NRC staff notes that NEI 99–04 allowing only small time intervals for increasing public health and safety establishes a voluntary reporting system plant operation at power with a system protection. In performing the risk- for the operating data that is similar to or function unavailable, (4) using, informed assessments and interpreting the system established for the ROP PI whenever possible, contingency actions the results, the following assumptions program. Should the licensee choose to to limit concurrent outages, and (5) were made: incorporate a regulatory commitment evaluating repair activities and • A condition resulting in the into the final safety analysis report or alternatives. inoperability of a system or component other document with established which currently results in the need for Based on this integrated evaluation, regulatory controls, the associated an immediate shutdown is a low the staff concludes that the proposed regulations would define the frequency event. system-specific TS changes would at appropriate change-control and • The frequency of events leading to most lead to acceptably small risk reporting requirements. LCO 3.0.3 is not expected to increase increases. In addition, defense-in-depth significantly following the proposed is taken into consideration. This 5.0 State Consultation change because such events may be conclusion is a consequence of the low In accordance with the Commission’s reportable and may require a licensee expected challenge frequency of the regulations, the [ ] State official was event report. In addition, events leading systems or functions associated with the notified of the proposed issuance of the to LCO 3.0.3 are used in performance proposed TS changes, the very short amendment. The State official had [(1) indicators and the reactor oversight proposed exposure times to the no comments or (2) the following program. Therefore, licensees will have specified plant conditions, the offsetting comments—with subsequent no incentive to allow the current low benefits of avoiding plant transitions, disposition by the staff]. and the identification of specific frequency of these events to increase 6.0 Environmental Consideration after the proposed extensions are restrictions to the implementation of the granted. proposed changes. The amendments change a • requirement with respect to the The risk incurred by increasing the 4.0 Verifications and Commitments required shutdown action time is installation or use of a facility controlled to acceptable levels using a In order to efficiently process component located within the restricted risk informed approach that considers incoming license amendment area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and the component risk worth and offsetting applications and ensure consistent change surveillance requirements. The benefits of avoiding plant transitions. implementation of the change by the NRC staff has determined that the The risk impact of the proposed TS various licensees, the NRC staff amendments involve no significant changes was assessed following the requested each licensee requesting the increase in the amounts and no three-tiered approach recommended in changes addressed by TSTF–426, Rev 0, significant change in the types of any RG 1.177 for evaluating proposed using the CLIIP to address the following effluents that may be released offsite, extensions in currently allowed plant-specific regulatory commitments. and that there is no significant increase Completion Times (CTs): 4.1 Each licensee should make a in individual or cumulative • The first tier involves the regulatory commitment to follow the occupational radiation exposure. The assessment of the change in plant risk implementation guidance of WCAP– Commission has previously issued a due to the proposed TS change; 16446–NP, Rev 0, ‘‘Actions to Preclude proposed finding that the amendments • The second tier involves the Entry into LCO 3.0.3 Implementation involve no-significant-hazards- identification of potentially high-risk Guidance (PA–RMCS–0196),’’ June considerations, and there has been no configurations that could exist if 2005. public comment on the finding [FR ].

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41278 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Accordingly, the amendments meet the Attachment—For Inclusion on the may be notarized in lieu of using this eligibility criteria for categorical Technical Specification Web Page oath or affirmation statement). exclusion set forth in 10 CFR The following example of an If you should have any questions 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), application was prepared by the NRC regarding this submittal, please contact no environmental impact statement or staff to facilitate use of the consolidated [NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER]. environmental assessment need be line item improvement process (CLIIP). Sincerely, prepared in connection with the The model provides the expected level [Name, Title] issuance of the amendments. of detail and content for an application Attachments: 7.0 Conclusion to adopt TSTF–426, Revision 0, ‘‘Risk- 1. Description and Assessment. Informed modifications to selected 2. Proposed Technical Specification The Commission has concluded, on technical specifications for conditions Changes. the basis of the considerations discussed leading to exigent plant shutdowns,’’ for 3. Revised Technical Specification above, that (1) there is reasonable CE plants using CLIIP. Licensees remain Pages. assurance that the health and safety of responsible for ensuring that their actual 4. Regulatory Commitments. the public will not be endangered by application fulfills their administrative 5. Proposed Technical Specification operation in the proposed manner, (2) requirements as well as Nuclear Bases Changes. such activities will be conducted in Regulatory Commission regulations. cc: NRC Project Manager compliance with the Commission’s U.S. Nuclear Regular Commission, NRC Regional Office regulations, and (3) the issuance of the Document Control Desk, Washington, NRC Resident Inspector amendments will not be inimical to the DC 20555. State Contact common defense and security or to the Subject: Plant Name, Docket No. 50— health and safety of the public. Application for Technical Attachment 1—Description and Assessment 8.0 References Specification Change TSTF–426, Risk Informed Modification to 1.0 Description 1. WCAP–16125–NP, Revision 0, Selected Technical Specifications The proposed amendment would ‘‘Justification for Risk-Informed for Conditions Leading to Exigent modify technical specifications to risk- Modifications to Selected Technical Plant Shutdowns Using the inform requirements regarding selected Specifications for Conditions Leading to Consolidated Line Item technical specifications for conditions Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ October 3, Improvement Process leading to exigent plant shutdowns. 2003. Gentleman: In accordance with the The changes are consistent with 2. Beckner, William D., ‘‘Safety provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 [LICENSEE] Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Evaluation of WCAP–16125–NP, Rev 0, is submitting a request for an approved Industry/Technical ‘‘Justification for Risk-Informed amendment to the technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF– Modifications to Selected Technical specifications (TS) for [PLANT NAME, 426, Revision 0. The availability of this Specifications for Conditions Leading to UNIT NOS.]. Technical Specification (TS) Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ Letter to The proposed amendment would improvement was published in the Gordon Bischoff, Westinghouse modify TS to risk-inform requirements Federal Register on [DATE] as part of regarding selected technical 3. TSTF–426, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise or the consolidated line item improvement specifications for conditions leading to process (CLIIP). Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO exigent plant shutdowns. 3.0.3,’’ August 2004. Attachment 1 provides a description 2.0 Assessment of the proposed change, the requested 4. WCAP–16446–NP, Revision 0, 2.1 Applicability of Topical Report, confirmation of applicability, and plant- ‘‘Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO TSTF–426, and Published Safety specific verifications. Attachment 2 3.0.3, Implementation Guidance,’’ June Evaluation 2005. provides the existing TS pages marked up to show the proposed change. [LICENSEE] has reviewed GE topical 5. NUREG–1432, ‘‘Standard Technical Attachment 3 provides revised (clean) report (Reference 1), TSTF–426 Specifications, Combustion Engineering TS pages. Attachment 4 provides a (Reference 2), and the NRC model safety Plants,’’ Revision 2, USNRC, June 2001. summary of the regulatory commitments evaluation (Reference 3) as part of the 6. Regulatory Guide 1.174, ‘‘An made in this submittal. Attachment 5 CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk provides the existing TS Bases pages the information in the GE topical report Assessment in Risk-Informed Decision marked up to show the proposed change and TSTF–426, as well as the safety Making on Plant Specific Changes to the (for information only).) evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are Licensing Basis,’’ USNRC, August 1998. [LICENSEE] requests approval of the applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and 7. Regulatory Guide 1.177, ‘‘An proposed license amendment by justify this amendment for the Approach for Plant Specific Risk- [DATE], with the amendment being incorporation of the changes to the Informed Decision Making: Technical implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X [PLANT] TS. [NOTE: Only those Specifications,’’ USNRC, August 1998. DAYS]. changes proposed in TSTF–426 are In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a addressed in the model SE. The model 8. CE–NPSD–1186, ‘‘Technical copy of this application, with SE and associated topical report address Justification for the Risk-Informed attachments, is being provided to the the entire fleet of CE plants, and the Modification to Selected Required designated [STATE] Official. plants adopting TSTF–426 must confirm Action End States for CEOG PWRs,’’ CE I declare under penalty of perjury the applicability of the changes to their Owner’s Group, April 2000. under the laws of the United States of plant.] 9. Regulatory Guide 1.182, ‘‘Assessing America that I am authorized by and Managing Risk Before Maintenance [LICENSEE] to make this request and 2.2 Optional Changes and Variations Activities at Nuclear Power Plants,’’ that the foregoing and the attachment [LICENSEE] is not proposing any May 2000. are true and correct. (Note that request variations or deviations from the GE

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41279

topical report and the TS changes addition, [LICENSEE] has proposed TS need be prepared in connection with the described in the TSTF–426, Revision 0 Bases consistent with the Westinghouse issuance of the amendment. or the NRC staff’s model safety topical report and TSTF–426, which 5.0 References evaluation dated [DATE]. [NOTE: The provide guidance and details on how to CLIIP does not prevent licensees from implement the new requirements. 1. WCAP–16125–NP, Revision 0, requesting an alternate approach or Implementation of TSTF–426 requires ‘‘Justification for Risk-Informed proposing changes without the that risk be managed and assessed, and Modifications to Selected Technical requested Bases or Bases control the licensee’s configuration risk Specifications for Conditions Leading to program. However, deviations from the management program is adequate to Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ October 3, approach recommended in this notice satisfy this requirement. The risk 2003. may require additional review by the assessment need not be quantified, but 2. TSTF–426, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise or NRC staff and may increase the time and may be a qualitative assessment of the Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO resources needed for the review. vulnerability of systems and 3.0.3,’’ August 2004. Significant variations from the components when one or more systems 3. Federal Register, Vol. XX, No. XX, approach, or inclusion of additional are not able to perform their associated p. XXXXX, ‘‘Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning changes to the license, will result in function. staff rejection of the submittal. Instead, Technical Specification Improvement licensees desiring significant variations 4.0 Environmental Evaluation for Combustion Engineering Plants To and/or additional changes should Risk-Inform Requirements Regarding submit a LAR that does not claim to The amendment changes Conditions Leading to Exigent Plant adopt TSTF–426.] requirements with respect to the Shutdown Using the Consolidated Line installation or use of a facility Item Improvement Process,’’ [DATE]. 3.0 Regulatory Analysis component located within the restricted Attachment 2—Proposed Technical 3.1 No Significant Hazards area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. The Specification Changes (Mark-Up) Consideration Determination NRC staff has determined that the amendment adopting TSTF–426, Rev. 0, Attachment 3—Proposed Technical [LICENSEE] has reviewed the involves no significant increase in the Specification Pages proposed no significant hazards amounts and no significant change in consideration determination (NSHCD) [Clean copies of Licensee specific the types of any effluents that may be published in the Federal Register as Technical Specification (TS) pages, part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has released offsite, and that there is no corresponding to the TS pages changed concluded that the proposed NSHCD significant increase in individual or by TSTF–426, Rev. 0, are to be included presented in the Federal Register notice cumulative occupational radiation in Attachment 3] is applicable to [PLANT] and is hereby exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding Attachment 4—List of Regulatory incorporated by reference to satisfy the Commitments requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a). that TSTF–426, Rev. 0, involves no significant hazards considerations, and The following table identifies those 3.2 Verification and Commitments there has been no public comment on actions committed to by [LICENSEE] in As discussed in the notice of the finding in Federal Register Notice [# this document. Any other statements in availability published in the Federal and [DATE]]. Accordingly, the this submittal are provided for Register on [DATE] for this TS amendment meets the eligibility criteria information purposes and are not improvement, plant-specific for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 considered to be regulatory verifications were performed as follows: CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR commitments. Please direct questions [LICENSEE] commits to the regulatory 51.22(b), no environmental impact regarding these commitments to commitments in Attachment 4. In statement or environmental assessment [CONTACT NAME].

Regulatory commitments Due date/event

[LICENSEE] will follow the guidance established in Section 11 of NUMARC 93–01, ‘‘Industry Guidance for [Ongoing, or implement with Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants,’’ Nuclear Management and Re- amendment]. source Council, Revision 3, July 2000. [LICENSEE] will follow the guidance established in WCAP–16446–NP, Revision [No.] ‘‘Actions to Preclude [Implement with amendment, when Entry into LCO 3.0.3, Implementation Guidance,’’ [DATE]. TS Required Action End State remains within the APPLICA- BILITY of TS].

Attachment 5—Proposed Changes to (NUREG–1432) on behalf of the Specifications Task Force (RITSTF) Technical Specification Bases Pages industry. TSTF–426, Rev. 0, is a Initiative 6, one of the industry’s proposal to incorporate WCAP–16125– initiatives being developed under the Proposed No Significant Hazards NP, Rev. 0, of September 2003, Risk Management Technical Consideration Determination ‘‘Justification for the Risk Informed Specifications (RMTS) program. Description of Amendment Request: Modifications to Selected Technical WCAP–16125–NP, Rev. 0 provides On August 30, 2004, the Owners Group Specifications for Conditions Leading to technical justification for the (OG) Technical Specifications Task Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ which was modification of various TS to define Force (TSTF) submitted a proposed approved by an NRC safety evaluation and/or modify Actions to extend the change, TSTF–426, Revision 0 (Rev. 0), (SE) dated July 9, 2004 into the CE STS. time required to initiate a plant to the Combustion Engineering (CE) This proposal is part of Nuclear Energy shutdown from 1 hour in accordance standard technical specifications (STS) Institute (NEI) Risk Informed Technical with LCO 3.0.3 to a risk-informed time

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41280 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

varying from 4 hours to 72 hours. The Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Rule 17h–1T requires a broker-dealer intent of the proposed modifications to Not Involve a Significant Reduction in to maintain and preserve records and the plant TS is to enhance overall plant the Margin of Safety other information concerning certain safety by: The proposed change increases the entities that are associated with the a. Avoiding unnecessary plant time the plant may operate without the broker-dealer. This requirement extends shutdowns. ability to perform an assumed safety to the financial and securities activities b. Minimizing plant transitions and function. The analyses in WCAP– of the holding company, affiliates and associated transition and realignment 16125–NP, Rev. 0, ‘‘Justification for subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are risks. reasonably likely to have a material c. Providing for increased flexibility Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected Technical Specifications for Conditions impact on the financial or operational in scheduling and performing condition of the broker-dealer. Rule maintenance and surveillance activities. Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,’’ Revision 0, September 2003, 17h–2T requires a broker-dealer to file d. Providing explicit guidance where with the Commission quarterly reports none currently exists. demonstrated that there is an acceptably small increase in risk due to a limited and a cumulative year-end report Basis for proposed no-significant- concerning the information required to period of continued operation in these hazards-consideration determination: be maintained and preserved under conditions and that this risk is balanced As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an Rule 17h–1T. analysis of the issue of no-significant- by avoiding the risks associated with a The collection of information required hazards-consideration is presented plant shutdown. As a result, the change by Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T is below: to the margin of safety provided by necessary to enable the Commission to requiring a plant shutdown within one monitor the activities of a broker-dealer Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does hour is not significant. Therefore, the Not Involve a Significant Increase in the affiliate whose business activities is proposed change does not involve a reasonably likely to have a material Probability or Consequences of an significant reduction in a margin of Accident Previously Evaluated impact on the financial and operational safety. condition of the broker-dealer. Without The proposed change provides a short Based upon the reasoning presented this information, the Commission would Completion Time to restore an above and the previous discussion of be unable to assess the potentially inoperable system for conditions under the amendment request, the requested damaging impact of the affiliate’s which the existing Technical change does not involve a significant activities on the broker-dealer. Specifications require a plant shutdown hazards consideration. There are currently 200 respondents to begin within one hour in accordance Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day that must comply with Rules 17h–1T with Limiting Condition for Operation of July 2006. and 17h–2T. Each of these 200 (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into Technical For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. respondents require approximately 10 Specification Actions is not an initiator Carl S. Schutlen, hours per year, or 2.5 hours per quarter, of any accident previously evaluated. As Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, to maintain the records required under a result, the probability of an accident Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Rule 17h–1T, for an aggregate annual previously evaluated is not significantly Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. burden of 2,000 hours (200 respondents increased. The consequences of any [FR Doc. 06–6364 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] × 10 hours). In addition, each of these accident previously evaluated that may BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 200 respondents must make five annual occur during the proposed Completion responses under Rule 17h–2T. These Times are no different from the five responses require approximately 14 consequences of the same accident SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE hours per respondent per year, or 3.5 during the existing one hour allowance. COMMISSION hours per quarter, for an aggregate As a result, the consequences of any annual burden of 2,800 hours (200 accident previously evaluated are not Proposed Collection; Comment respondents × 14 hours). In addition, significantly increased. Therefore, the Request there are approximately five new proposed change does not involve a respondents per year that must draft an significant increase in the probability or Upon Written Request, Copies Available organizational chart required under consequences of an accident previously From: Securities and Exchange Rule 17h–1T and establish a system for evaluated. Commission, Office of Filings and complying with the Rules. The staff Information Services, Washington, DC estimates that drafting the required Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does 20549. organizational chart requires one hour Not Create the Possibility of a New or Extension: and establishing a system for complying Different Kind of Accident From Any Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T, SEC File No. with the Rules requires three hours, Previously Evaluated 270–359, OMB Control No. 3235–0410. thus requiring an aggregate of 20 hours No new or different accidents result Notice is hereby given that pursuant (5 new respondents × 4 hours). Thus, from utilizing the proposed change. The to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the total compliance burden per year is changes do not involve a physical (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities approximately 4,820 burden hours alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or and Exchange Commission (2,000 + 2,800 + 20). different type of equipment will be (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the Written comments are invited on: (a) installed) or a change in the methods Office of Management and Budget Whether the proposed collection of governing normal plant operation. In requests for extension of the previously information is necessary for the proper addition, the changes do not impose any approved collections of information performance of the functions of the new or different requirements. The discussed below. The Code of Federal agency, including whether the changes do not alter assumptions made Regulation citations to this collection of information will have practical utility; in the safety analysis. Therefore, the information are the following rules: 17 (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate proposed change does not create the CFR 240.17h–1T and 17 CFR 240.17h– of the burden of the collection of possibility of a new or different kind of 2T under the Securities Exchange Act of information; (c) ways to enhance the accident from any previously evaluated. 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ‘‘Act’’). quality, utility, and clarity of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41281

information collected; and (d) ways to Form F–80 (17 CFR 239.41) is used by Notice is hereby given that pursuant minimize the burden of the collection of large publicly traded Canadian foreign to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 information on respondents, including private issuers registering securities (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities through the use of automated collection offered in business combinations and and Exchange Commission techniques or other forms of information exchange offers. The information (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments technology. Consideration will be given collected is intended to ensure that the on the collection of information to comments and suggestions submitted information required to be filed by the summarized below. The Commission in writing within 60 days of this Commission permits verification of plans to submit this existing collection publication. compliance with securities law of information to the Office of Comments should be directed to: R. requirements and assures the public Management and Budget for extension Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information availability of the information. Form F– and approval. Officer, Securities and Exchange 80 takes approximately 2 hours per Small business issuers use Form SB– Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, response and is filed by 4 issuers for a 1 (17 CFR 239.9), as defined in Rule 405 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, total annual burden of 8 hours. The (17 CFR 230.405) of the Securities Act Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: estimated burden of 2 hours per of 1933 (‘‘Securities Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 77a [email protected]. Comments must response was based upon the amount of et seq.), to register up to $10 million of be submitted to OMB within 60 days of time necessary to compile the securities to be sold for cash, if they this notice. registration statement using the existing have not registered more than $10 Dated: July 11, 2006. Canadian prospectus plus any million in securities offerings in any J. Lynn Taylor, additional information required by the continuous 12-month period, including the transaction being registered. The Assistant Secretary. Commission. Written comments are invited on: (a) information to be collected is intended [FR Doc. E6–11494 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] to ensure the adequacy of information BILLING CODE 8010–01–P Whether these proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper available to investors in the registration performance of the functions of the of securities and assures public SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE agency, including whether the availability of the information. COMMISSION information will have practical utility; Approximately 17 respondents file (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate Form SB–1 annually at an estimated 708 Proposed Collections; Comment of the burden imposed by the hours per response for a total of 12,036 Request collections of information; (c) ways to annual burden hours. We further estimate that 25% of the total burden Upon Written Request, Copies Available enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) (3,009 hours) is prepared by the From: Securities and Exchange company and the remaining 75% of the Commission, Office of Filings and ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on total burden hours is prepared by Information Services, Washington, DC outside counsel retained by the 20549. respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or company. Extensions: other forms of information technology. Written comments are invited on: (a) Form 18, OMB Control No. 3235–0121, Consideration will be given to Whether this proposed collections of SEC File No. 270–105, Form F–80, OMB information is necessary for the proper Control No. 3235–0404, SEC File No. comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this performance of the functions of the 270–357. agency, including whether the Notice is hereby given that pursuant publication. Please direct your written comments information will have practical utility; to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and of the burden of the collection of and Exchange Commission information collection information; (c) (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and on the collections of information clarity of the information collected; and summarized below. The Commission Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: [email protected]. (d) ways to minimize the burden of the plans to submit these existing collection of information on collections of information to the Office Dated: June 28, 2006. respondents, including through the use of Management Budget for extension J. Lynn Taylor, of automated collection techniques or and approval. Assistant Secretary. other forms of information technology. Form 18 (17 CFR 249.218) is used for [FR Doc. E6–11495 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Consideration will be given to the registration of securities of any BILLING CODE 8010–01–P comments and suggestions submitted in foreign government or political writing within 60 days of this subdivision on a U.S. exchange. The publication. information collected is intended to SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Please direct your written comments ensure that the information required to COMMISSION to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief be filed by the Commission permits Information Officer, Securities and verification of compliance with Proposed Collection; Comment Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley securities law requirements and assures Request Martinson 6432 General Green Way, the public availability of the Upon Written Request, Copies Available Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an information. Form 18 takes e-mail to: [email protected]. approximately 8 hours per response and From: Securities and Exchange is filed by approximately 5 respondents Commission, Office of Filings and Dated: June 28, 2006. for a total of 40 annual burden hours. It Information Services, Washington, DC J. Lynn Taylor, is estimated that 100% of the total 20549. Assistant Secretary. reporting burden is prepared by the Extension: Form SB–1; OMB Control No. [FR Doc. E6–11496 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] company. 3235–0423; SEC File No. 270–374. BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41282 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE The Commission staff estimates that Commission, Office of Filings and COMMISSION 3,378 respondents make approximately Information Services, Washington, DC 13,512 responses under the rule each 20549. Proposed Collection; Comment year. The staff estimates that on average, Extension: Rule 17Ac2–2; SEC File No. 270– Request Form 13F filers spend 98.8 hours/year 298; OMB Control No. 3235–0337; Form to prepare and submit the report. In Upon Written Request, Copies Available TA–2; SEC File No. 270–298; OMB addition, the staff estimates that 336 Control No. 3235–0337. From: Securities and Exchange respondents file approximately 1,344 Notice is hereby given that pursuant Commission, Office of Filings and amendments each year. The staff to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Information Services, Washington, DC estimates that on average, Form 13F (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities 20549–0007. filers spend 4 hours/year to prepare and and Exchange Commission Extension: Form 13F; SEC File No. 270–22; submit amendments to Form 13F. The (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the OMB Control No. 3235–0006. total annual burden of the rule’s Office of Management and Budget a requirements for all respondents Notice is hereby given that, pursuant request for extension of the previously therefore is estimated to be 335,090 to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 approved collection of information hours ((3,378 filers × 98.8 hours) + (336 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the Securities × discussed below. and Exchange Commission (the filers 4 hours)). The estimate of average burden hours ‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments Rule 17Ac2–2 and Form TA–2; OMB is made solely for the purposes of the on the collection of information Control No. 3235–0337; SEC File No. Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate summarized below. The Commission 270–298 is not derived from a comprehensive or plans to submit this collection of Rule 17Ac2–2 (17 CFR 240.17Ac2–2) even a representative survey or study of information to the Office of the costs of Commission rules. An and Form TA–2 (15 CFR 249b.102) Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for agency may not conduct or sponsor, and under the Securities Exchange Act of extension and approval. a person is not required to respond to, 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) require Section 13(f) 1 of the Securities transfer agents to file an annual report 2 a collection of information unless it Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange displays a currently valid control of their business activities with the Act’’) empowers the Commission to: (1) number. Commission. The amount of time Adopt rules that create a reporting and Written comments are invited on: (a) needed to comply with the requirements disclosure system to collect specific Whether the collections of information of Rule 17Ac2–2 and Form TA–2 varies. information; and (2) disseminate such are necessary for the proper From the total 786 registered transfer information to the public. Rule 13f–1 3 performance of the functions of the agents, approximately 197 registrants under the Exchange Act requires Commission, including whether the would be required to complete only institutional investment managers that information has practical utility; (b) the Questions 1 through 4 and the signature exercise investment discretion over accuracy of the Commission’s estimate section of amended Form TA–2, which accounts—having in the aggregate a fair of the burdens of the collections of we estimate would take each registrant market value of at least $100,000,000 of information; (c) ways to enhance the about 30 minutes, for a total burden of × exchange-traded or NASDAQ-quoted quality, utility, and clarity of the 99 hours (197 .5 hours). equity securities—to file quarterly information collected; and (d) ways to Approximately 262 registrants would be reports with the Commission on Form minimize the burdens of the collections required to answer Questions 1 through 13F.4 of information on respondents, 5, 10, and 11 and the signature section, The information collection including through the use of automated which we estimate would take about 1 requirements apply to institutional collection techniques or other forms of hour and 30 minutes, for a total of 393 × investment managers that meet the $100 information technology. Consideration hours (262 1.5 hours). The remaining million reporting threshold. Section will be given to comments and registrants, approximately 327, would 13(f)(5) of the Exchange Act defines an suggestions submitted in writing within be required to complete the entire Form ‘‘institutional investment manager’’ as 60 days of this publication. TA–2, which we estimate would take any person, other than a natural person, Please direct your written comments about 6 hours, for a total of 1,962 hours investing in or buying and selling to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief (327 × 6 hours). We estimate that the securities for its own account, and any Information Officer, Securities and total burden would be 2,454 hours (99 person exercising investment discretion Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley hours + 393 hours + 1,962 hours). with respect to the account of any other Martinson 6432 General Green Way, We estimate that the total cost of person. Form 13F under the Exchange Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an reviewing and entering the information Act defines ‘‘investment discretion’’ for e-mail to: [email protected]. reported on the Forms TA–2 for respondents is $31.50 per hour. The purposes of Form 13F reporting. Dated: June 20, 2006. The reporting system required by Commission estimates that the total cost J. Lynn Taylor, Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act is would be $77,301.00 annually ($31.50 × Assistant Secretary. intended, among other things, to create 2,454). in the Commission a central repository [FR Doc. E6–11497 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Rule 17Ac2–2 does not involve the of historical and current data about the BILLING CODE 8010–01–P collection of confidential information. investment activities of institutional Please note that an agency may not investment managers, and to improve conduct or sponsor, and a person is not SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the body of factual data available to required to respond to, a collection of COMMISSION regulators and the public. information unless it displays a Submission for OMB Review; currently valid control number. 1 15 U.S.C. 78m(f). Comment Request General comments regarding the 2 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. estimated burden hours should be 3 17 CFR 240.13f–1. Upon Written Request, Copies Available directed to the following persons: (i) 4 17 CFR 249.325. From: Securities and Exchange David Rostker, Desk Officer for the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41283

Securities and Exchange Commission, An agency may not conduct or I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Office of Information and Regulatory sponsor, and a person is not required to Statement of the Terms of Substance of Affairs, Office of Management and respond to, a collection of information the Proposed Rule Change Budget, Room 10102, New Executive unless it displays a currently valid The Exchange proposes to amend its Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 control number. rules to permit the listing and trading of or by sending an e-mail to: Comments should be directed to (1) quarterly options series.5 The text of the [email protected]; and (ii) R. Desk Officer for the Securities and proposed rule change is set forth below. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Exchange Commission, Office of Proposed new language is in italics; Officer, Securities and Exchange Information and Regulatory Affairs, language proposed to be deleted is in Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, Office of Management and Budget, [brackets]. 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Room 10102, New Executive Office Virginia 22312; or by sending an e-mail Building, Washington, DC, 20503 or by * * * * * to: [email protected]. Comments sending an e-mail to: Rule 900—Applicability, Definitions must be submitted to OMB within 30 [email protected]; and (2) R. and References days of this notice. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange (a) No change. Dated: June 29, 2006 (b) Definitions—The following terms J. Lynn Taylor, Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, as used in the Rules in this Chapter Assistant Secretary. Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to: shall, unless the context otherwise [FR Doc. E6–11498 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] [email protected]. Comments must indicates, have the meanings herein BILLING CODE 8010–01–P be submitted to OMB within 30 days of specified: this notice. (1)–(44) No change. (45) Quarterly Options Series—The SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Dated: June 29, 2006. term ‘‘Quarterly Options Series’’ means COMMISSION J. Lynn Taylor, a series in an options class that is Assistant Secretary. approved for listing and trading on the Submission for OMB Review, [FR Doc. E6–11499 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Comment Request Exchange in which the series is opened BILLING CODE 8010–01–P for trading on any business day and that Upon Written Request, Copies Available expires at the close of business on the last business day of a calendar quarter: From: Securities and Exchange SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Commission Office of Filings and COMMISSION (c)–(d) No change. Information Services, Washington, DC * * * Commentary 20549. [Release No. 34–54137; File No. SR–Amex– 2006–67] Extension: Rule 17a–8; SEC File No. 270–53; .01 No change. * * * * * OMB Control No. 3235–0092. Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice is hereby given that pursuant American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice Rule 903—Series of Options Open for to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness Trading (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities of Proposed Rule Change To Permit (a) After a particular class of options and Exchange Commission the Listing and Trading of Quarterly (call option contracts or put option (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the Options Series contracts relating to a specific Office of Management and Budget July 12, 2006. underlying security or calculated index) requests for extension of the previously Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the has been approved for listing and approved collection of information trading on the Exchange, the Exchange discussed below. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 shall from time to time open for trading Rule 17a–8—Financial Recordkeeping notice is hereby given that on July 11, series of options therein. Prior to the and Reporting of Currency and Foreign 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC opening of trading in any series of Transactions (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Amex’’) filed with the options, the Exchange shall fix the Securities and Exchange Commission expiration month, expiration year (if the Rule 17a–8 (17 CFR 240.17a–8) under (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule options series has more than one year the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 change as described in Items I and II remaining to expiration), and exercise U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (the ‘‘Act’’) requires below, which Items have been price of option contracts included in brokers and dealers to make and keep substantially prepared by the Exchange. each such series. For Short Term certain reports and records concerning The Exchange has designated this Options Series, the Exchange will fix a their currency and monetary instrument proposal as non-controversial under specific expiration date and exercise transactions. The requirements allow Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and price, as provided in paragraph (h). For the Commission to ensure that brokers Rule 19b–4(f)(6) thereunder,4 which Quarterly Options Series, the Exchange and dealers are in compliance with the renders the proposed rule change will fix a specific expiration date and Currency and Foreign Transactions effective upon filing with the exercise price, as provided in Reporting Act of 1970 (‘‘Bank Secrecy Commission. The Commission is Commentary .09. Act’’) and with the Department of the publishing this notice to solicit (b)–(h) No change. Treasury regulations under that Act. comments on the proposed rule change The reports and records required from interested persons. 5 This proposal is substantially identical to a under this rule initially are required recently approved proposal by the International Securities Exchange (‘‘ISE’’) to list Quarterly under Department of the Treasury 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Options Series on a pilot basis. See Securities regulations, and additional burden 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. Exchange Act Releases No. 53857 (May 24, 2006), hours and costs are not imposed by this 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 71 FR 31246 (June 1, 2006) (notice of filing); and rule. 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 54113 (July 7, 2006) (approval order).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

* * * Commentary options of the same class previously securities exchanges that employ a .01–.08 No change. opened. similar pilot program under their .09 Quarterly Options Series Pilot (d) The interval between strike prices respective rules. The pilot will Program: For a pilot period, the on Quarterly Options Series shall be the commence the day the Exchange first Exchange may list and trade options same as the interval for strike prices for initiates trading in a Quarterly Options series that expire at the close of business series in that same options class that Series, which shall be no later than on the last business day of a calendar expire in accordance with the normal August 10, 2006 and will expire on July quarter (‘‘Quarterly Options Series’’). monthly expiration cycle. 10, 2007. 1. The Exchange will list series that The Exchange may list Quarterly * * * * * expire at the end of the next consecutive Options Series for up to five (5) Rule 900C—Applicability and four (4) calendar quarters, as well as the currently listed options classes that are Definitions fourth quarter of the next calendar year. either Stock Index Options or options on For example if the Exchange is trading exchange traded funds. In addition, the (a) No change. Quarterly Options Series in the month Exchange may also list Quarterly (b) Definitions—The following terms of May 2006, it will list series that expire Options Series on any options classes as used in the Rules in this Section shall, unless the context otherwise at the end of the second, third and that are selected by other securities fourth quarters of 2006, as well as the exchanges that employ a similar pilot indicates, have the meanings herein specified: first and fourth quarters of 2007. program under their respective rules. Following the second quarter 2006 The pilot will commence the day the (1)–(25) No change. (26) Quarterly [Index Expiration] expiration, the Exchange will add series Exchange first initiates trading in a that expire at the end of the second Quarterly Options Series, which shall be Options Series—The term ‘‘quarterly [index expiration] options series’’ means quarter of 2007. no later than August 10, 2006 and will 2. The Exchange will not list a Short [an option contract on a stock index expire on July 10, 2007. Term Option Series on an options class group that expires on the first business (a) The Exchange will list series that whose expiration coincides with that of day of the month following the end of expire at the end of the next consecutive a Quarterly Options Series on that same a calendar quarter], for the purposes of four (4) calendar quarters, as well as the options class. fourth quarter of the next calendar year. this Section 14, a series in an index 3. Quarterly Options Series shall be For example, if the Exchange is trading options class that is approved for listing P.M. settled. Quarterly Options Series in the month and trading on the Exchange in which 4. The strike price of each Quarterly of May 2006, it will list series that expire the series is opened for trading on any Options Series will be fixed at a price at the end of the second, third and business day and that expires at the per share, with at least two strike prices fourth quarters of 2006, as well as the close of business on the last business above and two strike prices below the first and fourth quarters of 2007. day of a calendar quarter. value of the underlying security at about Following the second quarter 2006 (27) No change. the time that a Quarterly Options Series expiration, the Exchange will add series * * * * * is opened for trading on the Exchange. that expire at the end of the second Rule 903C—Series of Stock Index The Exchange shall list strike prices for quarter of 2007. a Quarterly Options Series that are Options (b) The Exchange will not list a Short within $5 from the closing price of the Term Options Series on an options class (a) No change. underlying on the preceding day. The whose expiration coincides with that of (i)–(iii) No change. Exchange may open for trading a Quarterly Options Series on that same (iv) [Quarterly Index Expiration additional Quarterly Options Series of options class. Option Series—The Exchange may list the same class if the current index value (c) The strike price of each Quarterly options on the Major Market (‘‘XMI’’), of the underlying index moves Options Series will be fixed at a price Institutional (‘‘XII’’) and S&P MidCap substantially from the exercise price of per share, with at least two strike prices 400 (‘‘MID’’) stock indices that expire on those Quarterly Options Series that above and two strike prices below the the first business day of the month already have been opened for trading on value of the underlying security at about following the end of a calendar quarter. the Exchange. The exercise price of each the time that a Quarterly Options Series For such options, the Exchange may list Quarterly Options Series opened for is opened for trading on the Exchange. up to eight consecutive quarterly trading on the Exchange shall be The Exchange shall list strike prices for expirations with an index multiplier no reasonably related to the current index a Quarterly Options Series that are greater than 500. All other contract value of the underlying index to which within $5 from the closing price of the terms for such options will conform to such series relates at or about the time underlying on the preceding day. the terms of the XMI, XII and MID such series of options is first opened for Additional Quarterly Options Series of options listed pursuant to the provisions trading on the Exchange. The term the same class may be opened for of Rule 903C(a)(i) and (ii) above.] ‘‘reasonably related to the current index trading on the Exchange when the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program: value of the underlying index’’ means Exchange deems it necessary to For a pilot period, the Exchange may list that the exercise price is within thirty maintain an orderly market, to meet and trade options series that expire at percent (30%) of the current index customer demand or when the market the close of business on the last business value. The Exchange may also open for price of the underlying security moves day of a calendar quarter (‘‘Quarterly trading additional Quarterly Options substantially from the initial exercise Options Series’’). The Exchange may list Series that are more than thirty percent price or prices. To the extent that any Quarterly Options Series for up to five (30%) away from the current index additional strike prices are listed by the (5) currently listed options classes that value, provided that demonstrated Exchange, such additional strike prices are either Stock Index Options or customer interest exists for such series, shall be within $5 from the closing price options on exchange traded funds. In as expressed by institutional, corporate, of the underlying on the preceding day. addition, the Exchange may also list or individual customers or their brokers. The opening of new Quarterly Options Quarterly Options Series on any options Market-makers trading for their own Series shall not affect the series of classes that are selected by other account shall not be considered when

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41285

determining customer interest under (ii)–(iii) No change. respects, would settle in the same this provision. (d) No change. manner as do the monthly expiration 5. The interval between strike prices * * * * * series in the same options class. on Quarterly Options Series shall be the The proposed rule change would same as the interval for strike prices for II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s allow the Exchange to open up to five series in that same options class that Statement of the Purpose of, and currently listed options classes that are expire in accordance with the normal Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule either index options or options on ETFs. monthly expiration cycle. Change (v) No change. In its filing with the Commission, the The strike price for each series would be (b)–(c) No change. Exchange included statements fixed at a price per share, with at least two strike prices above and two strike * * * Commentary concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed prices below the approximate value of .01–.04 No change. any comments it received on the the underlying security at about the Rule 904C—Position Limits proposed rule change. The text of these time that a Quarterly Options Series is statements may be examined at the opened for trading on the Exchange. The (a) No change. places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange may list strike prices for a (b) Broad Stock Index Groups. No Exchange has prepared summaries, set Quarterly Options Series that are within change. forth in sections A, B, and C below, of $5 from the closing price of the —Full Size Nasdaq 100 Index Options the most significant aspects of such underlying security on the preceding (NDX) through Eurotop 100 Index statements. trading day. The proposal would permit Options—No change. the Exchange to open for trading A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s —Positions in Short Term Option Series additional Quarterly Options Series of and Quarterly Options Series shall be Statement of the Purpose of, and the same class when the Exchange aggregated with positions in options Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule deems it necessary to maintain an contracts on the same index. Change orderly market, to meet customer —Russell 1000 Index Options, etc.—No 1. Purpose change. demand, or when the current market price of the underlying security moves (c) Stock Index Industry Groups. The Exchange proposes to amend its (i) Subject to the procedures specified rules to accommodate the listing of substantially from the exercise prices of in sub-paragraph (iii) of this paragraph options series that would expire at the those Quarterly Options Series that (c), the Exchange shall establish a close of business on the last business already have been opened for trading on position limit with respect to options on day of a calendar quarter (‘‘Quarterly the Exchange. In addition, the exercise the Pauzee´ Tombstone Common Stock Options Series’’).6 Quarterly Options price of each Quarterly Options Series Index of 6,000 contracts and for each Series could be opened on any approved on an underlying index would be underlying stock index industry group options class 7 on a business day required to be reasonably related to the at a level no greater than: (‘‘Quarterly Options Opening Date’’) and current index value of the index at or —18,000 contracts if the Exchange would expire at the close of business on about the time such series of options determines, at the time of a review the last business day of a calendar were first opened for trading on the conducted pursuant to subparagraph quarter (‘‘Quarterly Options Expiration Exchange. The term ‘‘reasonably related (ii) of this paragraph (c), that any Date’’). The Exchange would list series to the current index value of the single stock in the group accounted, that expire at the end of the next four underlying index’’ means that the on average, for 30% or more of the consecutive calendar quarters, as well as exercise price is within thirty percent of numerical index value during the 30- the fourth quarter of the next calendar the current index value. The Exchange day period immediately preceding the year. For example, if the Exchange were would also be permitted to open for review; or trading Quarterly Options Series in the trading additional Quarterly Options —24,000 contracts if the Exchange month of May 2006, it would list series Series on an underlying index that are determines, at the time of a review that expire at the end of the second, more than thirty percent away from the conducted pursuant to subparagraph third, and fourth quarters of 2006, as current index value, provided that (ii) of this paragraph (c), that any well as the first and fourth quarters of demonstrated customer interest exists single stock in the group accounted, 2007. Following the second quarter for such series, as expressed by on average, for 20% or more of the 2006 expiration, the Exchange would institutional, corporate, or individual numerical index value or that any five add series that expire at the end of the customers or their brokers. Market- stocks in the group together second quarter of 2007. Makers trading for their own account Quarterly Options Series listed on accounted, on average, for more than shall not be considered when currently approved options classes 50% of the numerical index value, but determining customer interest under would be P.M.-settled and, in all other that no single stock in the group this provision. accounted, on average, for 30% or 6 Because monthly options series expire more of the numerical index value, In 1993, the Exchange was granted SEC approval to list and trade broad-based index options that on the third Friday of their expiration during the 30-day period immediately expire at the end of each quarter. See Securities month, a Quarterly Options Series, preceding the review; or Exchange Act Release No. 31844 (February 9, 1993); —31,500 contracts if the Exchange 58 FR 8796 (February 17, 1993). The Exchange which would expire on the last business determines that the conditions listed and traded these options on the Major Market day of the quarter, could never expire in Index (XMI), Institutional Index (XII) and S&P specified above which would require the same week in which a monthly Midcap Index (MID). These quarterly-style options options series in the same class expires. the establishment of a lower limit proved to be of limited use to investors and did not have not occurred. trade particularly well, largely because they were The same, however, is not the case for —Positions in Short Terms Option A.M.-settled options. Short Term Option Series. Quarterly 7 Series and Quarterly Options Series Quarterly Options Series may be opened in Options Series and Short Term Option options on indexes or options on Exchange Traded Series on the same options class could shall be aggregated with positions in Fund (‘‘ETFs’’) that satisfy the applicable listing options contracts on the same index. criteria under Amex rules. potentially expire concurrently under

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

the proposal.8 Therefore, to avoid any Options Series may be opened would 2. Statutory Basis confusion in the marketplace, the help to ensure that the addition of the The Exchange believes that the proposal stipulates that the Exchange new series through this Pilot Program introduction of Quarterly Options Series may not list a Short Term Option Series will have only a negligible impact on will satisfy institutional demand for that expires at the end of the day on the the Exchange’s and the Option Price such options and provide additional same day as a Quarterly Options Series Reporting Authority’s (‘‘OPRA’’) quoting flexibility and additional risk in the same class expires. In other capacity. Also, limiting the term of the management tools to investors. For words, the proposed rules would not Pilot Program to a period of these reasons, the Exchange believes permit the Exchange to list a P.M.- approximately one year will allow the that the proposed rule change is settled Short Term Option Series on an Exchange and the Commission to consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 9 ETF or an index that would expire on determine whether the program should in general and furthers the objectives of a Friday that is the last business day of be extended, expanded, and/or made Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 10 in particular a calendar quarter if a Quarterly Options permanent. in that it is designed to promote just and Series on that ETF or index were equitable principles of trade, to prevent scheduled to expire on that day. If the Exchange were to propose an fraudulent and manipulative acts and However, the proposed rules would extension or an expansion of the practices, and, in general, to protect permit the Exchange to list as A.M.- program, or were the Exchange to settled Short Term Option Series and a propose to make the Pilot Program investors and the public interest. P.M.-settled Quarterly Options Series in permanent, the Exchange would submit, B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s the same options class that both expire along with any filing proposing such Statement on Burden on Competition on the same day (i.e., on a Friday that amendments to the Pilot Program, a The Exchange does not believe that is the last business day of the calendar Pilot Program report (‘‘Report’’) that will the proposed rule change will impose quarter). The Exchange believes that the provide an analysis of the Pilot Program any burden on competition that is not concurrent listing of an A.M.-settled covering the entire period during which necessary or appropriate in furtherance Short Term Option Series and a P.M.- the Pilot Program was in effect. The of the purposes of the Act. settled Quarterly Options Series on the Report would include, at a minimum: same underlying ETF or index that (1) Data and written analysis on the C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s expire on the same day would not tend open interest and trading volume in the Statement on Comments on the to cause the same confusion as would classes for which Quarterly Option Proposed Rule Change Received From P.M.-settled short term and quarterly Series were opened; (2) an assessment of Members, Participants or Others series in the same options class, and the appropriateness of the options No written comments were solicited would provide investors with an classes selected for the Pilot Program; or received with respect to the proposed additional hedging mechanism. (3) an assessment of the impact of the rule change. Finally, the interval between strike Pilot Program on the capacity of the III. Date of Effectiveness of the prices on Quarterly Options Series Amex, OPRA, and on market data Proposed Rule Change and Timing for would be the same as the interval for vendors (to the extent data from market strike prices for series in the same Commission Action data vendors is available); (4) any options class that expires in accordance capacity problems or other problems The Exchange has filed the proposed with the normal monthly expiration that arose during the operation of the rule change pursuant to Section cycles. 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and The Exchange believes that Quarterly Pilot Program and how the Amex addressed such problems; (5) any subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 Options Series would provide investors 12 complaints that the Amex received thereunder. Because the foregoing with a flexible and valuable tool to proposed rule change (i) Does not manage risk exposure, minimize capital during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Amex addressed significantly affect the protection of outlays, and be more responsive to the investors or the public interest; (ii) does timing of events affecting the securities them; and (6) any additional information that would assist in not impose any significant burden on that underlie option contracts. At the competition; and (iii) does not become assessing the operation of the Pilot same time, the Exchange is cognizant of operative for 30 days from the date on Program. The Report must be submitted the need to be cautious in introducing which it was filed, or such shorter time to the Commission at least sixty days a product that can increase the number as the Commission may designate, if prior to the expiration date of the Pilot of outstanding strike prices. For that consistent with the protection of Program. reason, the Exchange intends to employ investors and the public interest, the a limited pilot program (‘‘Pilot Alternatively, at the end of the Pilot proposed rule change has become Program’’) for Quarterly Options Series. Program, if the Exchange determines not effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) Under the terms of the Pilot Program, to propose an extension or an expansion of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) the Exchange could select up to five of the Pilot Program, or if the thereunder.13 option classes on which Quarterly Commission determines not to extend or A proposed rule change filed under Options Series may be opened on any expand the Pilot Program, the Exchange Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not Quarterly Options Opening Date. The would no longer list any additional become operative for 30 days after the Exchange would also be allowed to list Quarterly Options Series and would those Quarterly Options Series on any limit all existing open interest in 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). options class that is selected by another Quarterly Options Series to closing 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 11 securities exchange with a similar Pilot transactions only. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). Program under its rules. The Exchange 12 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). believes that limiting the number of Finally, the Exchange represents that 13 Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to options classes in which Quarterly it has the necessary systems capacity to give written notice to the Commission of its intent support new options series that will to file the proposed rule change five business days prior to filing. The Commission has determined to 8 The Exchange currently does not have any Short result from the introduction of Quarterly waive the five-day pre-filing requirement for this Term Option Series listed for trading. Options Series. proposal.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41287

date of filing. However, Rule 19b– 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC Securities and Exchange Commission 4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to 20549–1090. (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section waive the operative delay if such action All submissions should refer to File 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act is consistent with the protection of Number SR–Amex–2006–67. This file of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 investors and the public interest. The number should be included on the thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to, Exchange has asked the Commission to subject line if e-mail is used. To help the among other things, establish an waive the operative delay to permit the Commission process and review your automated Request for Responses Pilot Program extension to become comments more efficiently, please use (‘‘RFR’’) auction process for eligible effective prior to the 30th day after only one method. The Commission will complex orders (a ‘‘COA’’ process) filing. post all comments on the Commissions traded on the CBOE’s Hybrid Trading The Commission believes that Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ System (‘‘Hybrid System’’) and to revise waiving the 30-day operative delay is rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the certain CBOE rules governing complex consistent with the protection of submission, all subsequent orders. The proposed rule change, as investors and the public interest. The amendments, all written statements amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Commission notes that the proposal is with respect to the proposed rule was published for comment in the 3 substantially identical to the ISE’s change that are filed with the Federal Register on June 7, 2006. The Quarterly Option Series Pilot Program, Commission, and all written Commission received no comments previously published for comment and communications relating to the regarding the proposal, as amended. approved by the Commission,14 and proposed rule change between the This order approves the proposal, as thus the Exchange’s proposal raises no Commission and any person, other than amended. new issues of regulatory concern. those that may be withheld from the II. Description of the Proposal Moreover, waiving the operative delay public in accordance with the will allow the Exchange to immediately provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be A. COA Process for Complex Orders compete with other exchanges that list available for inspection and copying in CBOE Rule 6.53C, ‘‘Complex Orders and trade quarterly options under the Commission’s Public Reference on the Hybrid System,’’ sets forth the similar programs, and consequently will Room. Copies of such filing also will be procedures for trading complex orders benefit the public. Therefore, the available for inspection and copying at on the CBOE’s Hybrid System. Among Commission has determined to waive the principal office of the Exchange. All other things, CBOE Rule 6.53C the 30-day delay and allow the comments received will be posted addresses whether a complex order will proposed rule change to become without change; the Commission does be routed to a PAR workstation, for operative immediately.15 not edit personal identifying manual handling, or to the complex At any time within 60 days of the information from submissions. You order book (‘‘COB’’), for automated filing of the proposed rule change, the should submit only information that handling, and, once in the COB, the Commission may summarily abrogate you wish to make available publicly. All manner in which a complex order will such rule change if it appears to the submissions should refer to File execute against orders or quotes in the Commission that such action is Number SR–Amex–2006–67 and should EBook, orders resting in the COB, and necessary or appropriate in the public be submitted on or before August 10, orders submitted to trade against interest, for the protection of investors, 2006. interest in the COB. The CBOE proposes or otherwise in furtherance of the to introduce the COA,4 a new purposes of the Act. For the Commission, by the Division of functionality designed to give eligible Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated IV. Solicitation of Comments authority.16 complex orders an opportunity for price improvement before being booked in the J. Lynn Taylor, Interested persons are invited to COB or once on PAR. The CBOE submit written data, views, and Assistant Secretary. believes that the COA process will arguments concerning the foregoing, [FR Doc. E6–11489 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] facilitate more automated handling of including whether the proposed rule BILLING CODE 8010–01–P complex orders. change is consistent with the Act. Under the COA process, when a COA Comments may be submitted by any of is initiated for a COA-eligible order,5 the the following methods: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE CBOE will send an RFR message to all COMMISSION Electronic Comments members who have elected to receive RFR messages.6 Market Makers with an • Use the Commission’s Internet [Release No. 34–54135; File No. SR–CBOE– 2005–65] appointment in the relevant options comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ class and members acting as agent for rules/sro.shtml); or • Self-Regulatory Organizations; orders resting at the top of the COB in Send an e-mail to rule- Chicago Board Options Exchange, the relevant options series may submit [email protected]. Please include File Incorporated; Order Approving No. SR–Amex–2006–67 on the subject Proposed Rule Change and 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). line. Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Relating to 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. the Processing of Complex Orders in 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53909 Paper Comments (May 31, 2006), 71 FR 33011 (‘‘Notice’’). the Hybrid Trading System • Send paper comments in triplicate 4 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d). 5 to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, July 12, 2006. The appropriate CBOE committee will Securities and Exchange Commission, determine, on a class-by-class basis, the complex I. Introduction orders that are eligible for a COA based on the order’s marketability (defined as a number of ticks 14 See supra note 5. On August 24, 2005, the Chicago away from the current market), size, and complex 15 For purposes only of waiving the operative Board Options Exchange, Incorporated order type. See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(i)(2). delay of this proposal, the Commission notes that 6 The RFR message will identify the component it has considered the proposed rule’s impact on (‘‘CBOE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the series, the size of the COA-eligible order and any efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 contingencies, if applicable, but will not identify U.S.C. 78c(f). 16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). the side of the market. See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(ii).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

responses to the RFR message (‘‘RFR conclude early will be deemed conduct market participants, as defined in CBOE Responses’’) during the Response Time inconsistent with just and equitable Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable, may Interval.7 RFR Responses, which will principles of trade and a violation of submit quotes, as well as orders, to trade not be displayed to the market, may be CBOE Rule 4.1, ‘‘Just and Equitable against orders in the COB; (4) provide expressed on a net price basis in a Principles of Trade.’’ 14 Similarly, the that the allocation of complex orders multiple of the minimum increment or dissemination of information regarding within the COB will be pursuant to the in one-cent increments, as determined COA-eligible orders to third parties will rules of trading priority otherwise by the appropriate CBOE committee on be deemed conduct inconsistent with applicable to incoming orders in the a class-by-class basis.8 The legs of a just and equitable principles of trade individual component legs; and (5) COA-eligible order may be executed in and a violation of CBOE Rule 4.1 and provide that the allocation of complex one-cent increments, regardless of the other CBOE Rules.15 orders among market participants will minimum quoting increments that The CBOE states that the COA process be made pursuant to CBOE Rule otherwise would apply to the individual may not be used to trade a COA-eligible 6.45A(c) or 6.45B(c), as applicable. legs of the order.9 order against a facilitated or solicited C. Changes to the Minimum Trading At the conclusion of the Response order.16 In this regard, the CBOE notes Increment for Complex Orders Time Interval, a COA-eligible order will that facilitations and solicitations of trade first based on the best net price(s) complex orders, including COA-eligible CBOE Rule 6.42(3) currently provides available.10 At the same net price, the orders, will continue to be subject to the that bids and offers in spread, straddle, COA-eligible order will trade, first, limitations on facilitations and and combination orders, as defined in against individual orders and quotes in solicitations provided in Interpretations CBOE Rule 6.53, may be expressed in the EBook, provided the COA-eligible and Policies .01 and .02 to CBOE Rule any increment, regardless of the order can be executed in full or in a 6.45A, ‘‘Priority and Allocation of minimum increments otherwise permissible ratio by orders and quotes Equity Option Trades on the CBOE appropriate to the individual legs of the in the EBook; second, against public Hybrid System,’’ and in Interpretations order. The proposal revises CBOE Rule customer complex orders resting in the and Policies .01 and .02 to CBOE Rule 6.42(3) to include the other complex COB before, or that are received during, 6.45B, ‘‘Priority and Allocation of orders defined in CBOE Rule 6.53C in the Response Time Interval, and public Trades in Index Options and Options on addition to the complex orders currently customer RFR Responses; third, against ETFs on the CBOE Hybrid System.’’ 17 enumerated CBOE Rule 6.42(3).19 non-public customer orders resting in CBOE Rule 6.42(3) also provides that the COB before the Response Time B. Revisions to the COB bids and offers for spread, straddle, or Interval; and fourth, against non-public The CBOE also proposes to revise its combination orders in S&P 500 Index customer orders resting in the COB that rules governing the COB 18 to: (1) Allow options, other than box spreads, must be are received during the Response Time the appropriate CBOE committee to expressed in decimal increments no Interval and non-public customer RFR determine, on a class-by-class basis, smaller than $.05. The CBOE proposes 11 Responses. A COA-eligible order that whether complex orders routed to or to apply this provision to S&P 100 Index cannot be filled in whole or in a resting in the COB may be expressed on options. The CBOE believes that this permissible ratio will route to the COB a net price basis in multiples of the change is appropriate in light of the 12 or back to PAR, as applicable. minimum increment or in one-cent complexity of complex orders and the The COA provisions also address the increments; (2) provide that the legs of size of the underlying S&P 100 Index. handling of unrelated complex orders a complex order may be executed in In addition, the proposal revises that the CBOE receives prior to the one-cent increments, regardless of the CBOE Rule 6.42(3) to state that the legs expiration of the Response Time minimum quoting increments otherwise of complex orders may be executed in Interval.13 A pattern or practice of applicable to the individual legs of the one-cent increments. CBOE Rule 6.42(3) submitting orders that cause a COA to order; (3) provide that a complex order will continue to require complex orders in the COB may execute against quotes, to be expressed in net price increments 7 The Response Time Interval is the period of that are multiples of the minimum time during which responses to the RFR may be as well as orders, in the EBook, and that entered. The appropriate CBOE committee will increment to be entitled to priority determine the Response Time Interval, which will 14 See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy under CBOE Rule 6.45, ‘‘Priority of Bids not exceed three seconds, on a class-by-class basis. .04. and Offers—Allocation of Trades.’’ See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(iii)(2). 15 See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy 8 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(iii)(1). .05. D. Additional Changes 9 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(v). 16 See Notice supra note 3, at 33015 n.12. The CBOE proposes to revise CBOE 10 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(v). 17 Regarding principal transactions, Interpretation Rules 6.45; 6.45A; 6.45B; Interpretation 11 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(v)(1)–(4). and Policy .01 of CBOE Rules 6.45A and 6.45B 12 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(vi). prohibit an order entry firm from executing as and Policy .03 to CBOE Rule 6.74, 13 An incoming COA-eligible order on the principal against an order it represents as agent ‘‘Crossing Orders;’’ and CBOE Rule 6.9, opposite side of the market that is marketable unless: (1) The agency order is first exposed on the ‘‘Solicited Transactions,’’ to include the against the starting price of the original COA- Hybrid System for at least three seconds; (2) the complex orders defined in CBOE Rule eligible order will end the original COA; an order entry firm has been bidding or offering for at incoming COA-eligible order on the same side of least three seconds prior to receiving an agency 6.53C in addition to the complex orders the market, at the same price or worse than the order that is executable against such bid or offer; currently specified in the rules. original COA-eligible order and better than or equal or (3) the order entry firm proceeds in accordance to the starting price, will join the original COA; and with the crossing rules in CBOE Rule 6.74. III. Discussion an incoming COA-eligible order on the same side Regarding solicitation orders, Interpretation and After careful review, the Commission of the market at a better price than the original Policy .02 of CBOE Rules 6.45A and 6.45B require COA-eligible order will join the original COA, cause an order entry firm to expose for at least three finds that the proposed rule change is the original COA to end, and cause a new COA to seconds an order it represents as agent before the begin for any remaining balance on the incoming order may be executed electronically via the 19 The complex orders defined in CBOE Rule COA-eligible order. See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(viii). electronic execution mechanism of the Hybrid 6.53C(a) are: Spread order; straddle order; strangle CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(viii) also describes the System, in whole or in part, against orders solicited order; combination order as defined in CBOE Rule processing of orders when an unrelated complex from members and non-member broker-dealers to 6.53(e); ratio order; butterfly spread order; box/roll order arrives prior to the expiration of the Response transact with the order. spread order; collar orders and risk reversals; and Time Interval. 18 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(c). conversions and reversals.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41289

consistent with the requirements of the facilitated or solicited order. COA- CBOE Rule 6.42(3) currently requires Act and the rules and regulations eligible orders, like other orders on the bids and offers in complex orders in thereunder applicable to a national Hybrid System, will be subject to CBOE S&P 500 Index options, other than box securities exchange and, in particular, Rule 6.45A, Interpretation and Policies spreads, to be expressed in increments with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,20 which .01 and .02, and CBOE Rule 6.45B, no smaller than $0.05. The CBOE requires, among other things, that the Interpretation and Policies .01 and .02. proposes to apply this provision to S&P rules of a national securities exchange Accordingly, a CBOE member seeking to 100 Index options. The Commission be designed to prevent fraudulent and trade with its customer’s COA-eligible believes that this change is consistent manipulative acts and practices, to order would be required to comply with with the Act because of the similarities promote just and equitable principles of Interpretation and Policy .01 of CBOE between the S&P 500 Index and the S&P trade, to remove impediments to, and Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable, and 100 Index. perfect the mechanism of, a free and a CBOE member seeking to cross its Finally, the Commission believes that open market and a national market customer’s COA-eligible order with a the proposal to revise CBOE Rules 6.45, system and, in general, to protect solicited order would be required to 6.45A, 6.45B, 6.9, and 7.4 to include the investors and the public interest.21 comply with Interpretation and Policy complex orders defined in CBOE Rule The new COA functionality will .02 of CBOE Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as 6.53C is consistent with the Act because provide an electronic auction for applicable. it should provide consistent treatment eligible complex orders. Under the COA The Commission believes that the for different types of complex orders auction process, Market Makers with an changes to the COB should facilitate the under the CBOE’s rules. appointment in the relevant options execution of complex orders. In this IV. Conclusion class and members acting as agent for regard, the proposal revises CBOE Rule It is therefore ordered, pursuant to orders resting at the top of the COB in 6.53C(c) to provide that quotes in the Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,28 that the the relevant options series will be able EBook, as well as orders in the EBook, proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–2005– to submit RFR Responses. At the may execute against a complex order in 65), as amended, is approved. conclusion of the COA auction, the the COB, and that market participants, auctioned order will execute against the as defined in CBOE Rule 6.45A or For the Commission, by the Division of interest available in the EBook, the COB, Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated 6.45B, as applicable, may submit quotes, 29 and/or RFR Responses submitted during as well as orders, to trade against orders authority. the COA.22 By providing an electronic in the COB. In addition, the proposal J. Lynn Taylor, auction for eligible complex orders, the revises CBOE Rule 6.53C(c) to allow Assistant Secretary. Commission believes that the COA complex orders routed to or resting in [FR Doc. E6–11491 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] process could facilitate the execution of the COB to be expressed and executed BILLING CODE 8010–01–P eligible complex orders and provide in one-cent increments, thereby them with an opportunity for price providing additional price points at improvement. which complex orders could be SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE The Commission notes that the executed.25 The proposal also clarifies COMMISSION CBOE’s rules provide that a pattern or the operation of the COB by providing [Release No. 34–54141; File No. SR–MSRB– practice of submitting orders that cause that complex orders in the COB will be 2006–05] a COA to conclude early will be deemed allocated pursuant to the rules of conduct inconsistent with just and trading priority otherwise applicable to Self-Regulatory Organizations; equitable principles of trade and a incoming electronic orders in the Municipal Securities Rulemaking violation of CBOE Rule 4.1,23 and that individual component legs,26 and that Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate the dissemination of information complex orders will be allocated among Effectiveness of Proposed Rule regarding COA-eligible orders to third market participants pursuant to CBOE Change Relating to Revisions to the parties will be deemed conduct Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable.27 Series 53 Examination Program inconsistent with just and equitable The CBOE proposes to revise CBOE principles of trade and a violation of July 13, 2006. 24 Rule 6.42(3) to allow the legs of a Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the CBOE Rule 4.1 and other CBOE rules. complex order to be executed in one- These provisions will require the CBOE Securities Exchange Act of 1934 cent increments, which, according to 1 2 to surveil for, and should help to deter, (‘‘Act’’), and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, the CBOE, will allow members to notice is hereby given that on June 27, potential abuses of the COA process. execute complex order transactions In addition, the Commission notes 2006, the Municipal Securities more easily. Accordingly, the Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’ or that the COA system cannot be used to Commission believes that this change trade a COA-eligible order against a ‘‘Board’’), filed with the Securities and could facilitate the execution of Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’ complex orders. The Commission notes 20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). or ‘‘SEC’’) the proposed rule change as 21 In approving this proposed rule change, the that CBOE Rule 6.42(3) will continue to described in Items I, II and III below, Commission has considered the proposed rule’s require complex orders to be expressed which Items have been prepared by the impact on efficiency, competition, and capital in multiplies of the minimum increment MSRB. The MSRB has designated the formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). to be entitled to priority under CBOE proposed rule change as constituting a 22 See notes 10–12, supra, and accompanying Rule 6.45. text. The Commission notes that, at the same price, stated policy, practice, or interpretation public customer orders in the COB and public with respect to the meaning, customer RFR Responses will trade against a COA- 25 The appropriate CBOE committee will administration, or enforcement of an eligible order before non-public customer orders in determine, on a class-by-class basis, whether existing rule of the self-regulatory the COB and non-public customer RFR Responses. complex orders routed to or resting in the COB may See CBOE Rule 6.53C(d)(v)(2)–(4). be expressed in a multiple of the minimum 23 See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy increment or in one-cent increments. See CBOE 28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). .04. Rule 6.53C(c)(ii). 29 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 24 See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Interpretation and Policy 26 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)(2). 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). .05. 27 See CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)(3). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

organization pursuant to Section A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s • Records concerning compliance 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act,3 and Rule 19b– Statement of the Purpose of, and with Rule G–20, on gifts, gratuities and 4(f)(1) thereunder,4 which renders the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule non-cash compensation. proposal effective upon filing with the Change • SEC requirements for retention of information on associated persons. Commission. The Commission is 1. Purpose publishing this notice to solicit • New Rule G–38, on solicitation of comments on the proposed rule change Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act 7 municipal securities business. • from interested persons. authorizes the MSRB to prescribe Requirements regarding municipal standards of training, experience, fund securities advertisements. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s competence, and such other • Remarketing activities under Rule Statement of the Terms of Substance of qualifications as the Board finds G–23, on activities of financial advisors. the Proposed Rule Change necessary or appropriate in the public • Definitions regarding the Real-Time interest or for the protection of Transaction Reporting System. The MSRB is filing with the • investors. The MSRB has developed Minimum denominations. Commission revisions to the study • examinations that are designed to Forwarding official outline and selection specifications for establish that persons associated with communications. the Municipal Securities Principal brokers, dealers and municipal The MSRB has deleted from the study Qualification Examination (Series 53) securities dealers that effect transactions outline rules or rule provisions that are program.5 The proposed revisions in municipal securities have attained obsolete or do not have direct impact on update the material to reflect changes to specified levels of competence and the daily work of a municipal securities the rules and regulations covered in the knowledge. The MSRB periodically principal. These deletions include: examination, as well as modify the • Rule G–35, on arbitration. reviews the content of the examinations • Requirements regarding the retaking content of the examination program to to determine whether revisions are of qualification examinations and the track more closely the job necessary or appropriate in view of waiver of qualification requirements. responsibilities of a municipal securities changes pertaining to the subject matter principal. The MSRB is not proposing • Old Rule G–38, on consultants. covered by the examinations. • References to the scope and notice any textual changes to the rules of the MSRB Rule G–3(b) states that a MSRB. of Rule G–12(a). municipal securities principal has • SEC requirements regarding lost The revised study outline is available responsibility to oversee the municipal and stolen securities. on the MSRB’s Web site (http:// securities activities of a broker, dealer or Technical changes have been made to www.msrb.org), at the MSRB’s principal municipal securities dealer. In this correct the citations for various rules office, and at the Commission’s Public capacity, a municipal securities that have been amended. In addition, as Reference Room. The MSRB has omitted principal manages, directs or supervises part of an ongoing effort to align the the Series 53 selection specifications one or more of the following activities examination more closely to the from this filing and has submitted the associated with the conduct of supervisory duties of a municipal specifications under separate cover to municipal securities business: securities principal, the MSRB is the Commission with a request for Underwriting; trading; buying or selling modifying the content of the confidential treatment pursuant to Rule municipal securities to or from examination to track the functional 24b–2 under the Act.6 customers; rendering financial advisory workflow of a municipal securities or consultant services to issuers of II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s principal. municipal securities; communications Statement of the Purpose of, and As a result of the revisions noted to customers about any municipal Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule above, the MSRB is modifying the securities activities; processing, Change number of questions on each section of clearing, and (in the case of securities the Series 53 study outline as follows: In its filing with the Commission, the firms) safekeeping of municipal Part One—Federal Regulations, four MSRB included statements concerning securities; and training of principals and questions; Part Two—General the purpose of and basis for the representatives. The only examination Supervision, 21 questions; Part Three— proposed rule change and discussed any that qualifies a municipal securities Sales Supervision, 29 questions; Part comments it received on the proposed principal is the Municipal Securities Four—Origination and Syndication, 22 rule change. The text of these statements Principal Qualification Examination questions; and Part Six—Operations, 16 may be examined at the places specified (Series 53). questions. Coverage on Part Five— in Item IV below. The MSRB has A committee of industry members and Trading remains unchanged with eight prepared summaries, set forth in MSRB staff recently completed a review questions. The revised examination Sections A, B, and C below, of the most of the job requirements for a municipal continues to cover areas of knowledge significant aspects of such statements. securities principal and the Series 53 required for effective supervision of examination program. As a result of this municipal securities activities. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). review, the MSRB is updating the The MSRB is proposing these changes 4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(1). content of the examination to cover to the entire content of the Series 53 5 The MSRB is also proposing corresponding certain rules or provisions of rules that examination, including the selection revisions to the Series 53 question bank, but based were promulgated since the last revision specifications and question bank. The upon instructions from the Commission staff, the of the outline. Areas added to the study number of questions on the Series 53 MSRB is submitting SR–MSRB–2006–05 for examination will remain at 100, and immediate effectiveness pursuant to Seciton outline include: 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(1) • Definition of municipal fund candidates will continue to be allowed thereunder, and is not filing the question bank for security. three and one-half hours for each testing Commission review. See letter to Diane G. Klinke, • Qualification and numerical session. Also, each question will General Counsel, MSRB, from Belinda Blaine, requirements for municipal fund continue to count one point, and each Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is securities limited principals. candidate must correctly answer 70 available for Commission review. percent of the questions in order to 6 17 CFR 240.24b–2. 7 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(A). receive a passing grade.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41291

2. Statutory Basis arguments concerning the foregoing, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE The MSRB believes that the proposed including whether the proposed rule COMMISSION change is consistent with the Act. revisions to the Series 53 examination [Release No. 34–54155; File No. SR– program are consistent with the Comments may be submitted by any of NASDAQ–2006–001] provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the the following methods: Act,8 which authorizes the MSRB to Electronic Comments Self-Regulatory Organizations; The prescribe standards of training, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order experience, competence, and such other • Use the Commission’s Internet Approving a Proposed Rule Change qualifications as the Board finds comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ and Amendment No. 1 Thereto and necessary or appropriate in the public rules/sro.shtml); or Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Amendment interest or for the protection of • Send an e-mail to rule- Nos. 2 and 3 Thereto Relating to the investors. Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the [email protected]. Please include File Nasdaq Market Center Act also provides that the Board may Number SR–MSRB–2006–05 on the appropriately classify municipal subject line. July 14, 2006. securities brokers and municipal securities dealers and their associated Paper Comments I. Introduction personnel and require persons in any • Send paper comments in triplicate On February 7, 2006, The NASDAQ such class to pass tests prescribed by the to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Stock Market LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’ or Board. Securities and Exchange Commission, ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., and Exchange Commission Statement on Burden on Competition Washington, DC 20549–1090. (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act The MSRB does not believe that the All submissions should refer to File of 1934 (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 proposed rule change will impose any Number SR–MSRB–2006–05. This file thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to burden on competition that is not number should be included on the integrate the operations of the existing necessary or appropriate in furtherance subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Nasdaq Market Center, along with of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Commission process and review your Nasdaq’s Brut and INET facilities. On C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s comments more efficiently, please use March 29, 2006, Nasdaq submitted Statement on Comments on the only one method. The Commission will Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule Proposed Rule Change Received From post all comments on the Commission’s change (‘‘Amendment No. 1’’). The Members, Participants or Others Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ proposed rule change, as amended by rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Amendment No. 1, was published for Written comments were neither submission, all subsequent comment in the Federal Register on solicited nor received. amendments, all written statements April 14, 2006.3 The Commission III. Date of Effectiveness of the with respect to the proposed rule received twelve comments regarding the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for change that are filed with the proposal.4 Commission Action Commission, and all written communications relating to the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). The proposed rule change has become 2 proposed rule change between the 17 CFR 240.19b–4. effective pursuant to Section 3 Commission and any person, other than See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53583 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act 9 and Rule 19b– (March 31, 2006), 71 FR 19573 (‘‘Single Book those that may be withheld from the 4(f)(1) thereunder,10 in that the Proposal’’). public in accordance with the 4 proposed rule change constitutes a See letter from Kim Bang, Chief Executive provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Officer, Bloomberg Tradebook LLC (‘‘Bloomberg’’) stated policy, practice, or interpretation available for inspection and copying in (‘‘Kim Bang’’) to Brian G. Cartwright, General with respect to the meaning, the Commission’s Public Reference Counsel, Commission, dated March 6, 2006 administration, or enforcement of an (‘‘Bloomberg Comment Letter I’’); letter from Kim Room. Copies of such filing also will be existing rule of the self-regulatory Bang, David Cummings, Chief Executive Officer, available for inspection and copying at BATS Trading, Inc. (‘‘BATS’’) (‘‘David Cummings’’), organization. MSRB proposes to the principal office of the MSRB. All Ronald Pasternak, President, Direct Edge ECN LLC, implement the revised Series 53 comments received will be posted and Martin Kaye, Chief Executive Officer, Track examination program on August 1, ECN (‘‘Track’’) (‘‘Martin Kaye’’) to Robert L.D. without change; the Commission does 2006. At any time within 60 days of the Colby, Acting Director, Division of Market not edit personal identifying Regulation (‘‘Davision’’), Commission, dated March filing of the proposed rule change, the information from submissions. You 21, 2006 (‘‘ECN Comment Letter’’); letter from Kim Commission may summarily abrogate should submit only information that Bang to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission such rule change if it appears to the (‘‘Jonathan Katz’’), dated May 5, 2006 (‘‘Bloomberg you wish to make available publicly. All Commission that such action is Comment Letter II’’); letter from David Cummings submissions should refer to File to Christopher Cox, Chairman, Commission necessary or appropriate in the public Number SR–MSRB–2006–05 and should (‘‘Chairman Cox’’), dated May 5, 2006 (‘‘BATS interest, for the protection of investors, be submitted on or before August 10, Comment Letter’’); letter from Martin Kaye to or otherwise in furtherance of the Chairman Cox, dated May 5, 2006 (‘‘Track 2006. purposes of the Act.11 Comment Letter I’’); letter from Leonard J. Amoruso, For the Commission, by the Division of Senior Managing Director and Chief Compliance IV. Solicitation of Comments Officer, Knight Capital Group, Inc. (‘‘Knight’’) to Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission (‘‘Nancy 12 Interested persons are invited to authority. Morris’’); dated May 5, 2006 (‘‘Knight Comment submit written data, views, and J. Lynn Taylor, Letter’’); letter from C. Thomas Richardson, Managing Director, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Assistant Secretary. (‘‘Citigroup’’) to Nancy Morris, dated May 17, 2006 8 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(A). [FR Doc. E6–11492 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] (‘‘Citigroup Comment Letter’’); letter from Kim Bang 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i). BILLING CODE 8010–01–P to Nancy Morris, dated May 30, 2006 (‘‘Bloomberg 10 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(1). Comment Letter II’’); letter from David C. Chavern, 11 See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Vice President, Capital Markets Program, U.S. 78s(b)(3)(C). 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Continued

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

On July 7, 2006, Nasdaq filed Nasdaq Facilities are all linked, but and to comply with applicable rules and Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule separate, each operating pursuant to registration requirements. change (‘‘Amendment No. 2’’). On July independent Commission-approved In addition to reorganizing the rules, 14, 2006, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. rules, with the NMC Facility operating and making changes to the Exchange’s 3 to the proposed rule change under the 4700 Series, the Brut Facility rules for exchange and Regulation NMS (‘‘Amendment No. 3’’). This order operating under the 4900 Series, and the readiness, the proposed rule change, as approves the proposed rule change, as INET Facility operating under the 4950 amended, addresses, among other amended by Amendment No. 1. Series. things, openings and closings, the order Simultaneously, the Commission is Under the proposal, as amended, display/matching system, order types, providing notice of filing of Amendment Nasdaq seeks to integrate the matching time in force designations, anonymity, Nos. 2 and 3 and granting accelerated systems of the three Nasdaq Facilities routing, book processing, adjustment of approval of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3. into a single matching system, governed open orders,9 and Nasdaq’s plan for a by a single set of rules. To ease the II. Description phased-in implementation of the transition for Nasdaq participants, the proposed rule change. Nasdaq proposes to combine the Integrated System would be accessible In Amendment No. 2, because of the operations of the existing Nasdaq through the same connectivity by which extension of certain compliance dates Market Center with its Brut and INET users currently access each of the relating to Regulation NMS, Nasdaq facilities to create a single integrated Nasdaq Facilities, and use functionality proposed to modify certain rules such system, with a single pool of liquidity that is already approved and operating that their effectiveness would coincide (the ‘‘Integrated System’’ or ‘‘System’’). within one or more of the Nasdaq with the Regulation NMS compliance The Integrated System would only Facilities. For example, the Integrated dates announced by the Commission. accept automatic executions and would System would use slightly modified Amendment No. 2 also contained a eliminate Nasdaq’s current order functionality from the INET Facility for number of non-substantive changes and delivery functionality. The Integrated order entry, display, processing, and technical corrections to clarify the System is designed to enable Nasdaq to routing, and draw on functionality in proposal. operate its execution system as that of the NMC Facility for the opening and In Amendment No. 3, Nasdaq a national securities exchange rather closing processes. Participants would proposed to schedule the than as a national securities association, remain subject to general obligations implementation of the System beginning pursuant to the Commission order, applicable to all Nasdaq Facilities, August 28, 2006.10 Nasdaq described its dated January 13, 2006, approving including honoring System trades, planned phase-in schedule for the Nasdaq’s application to register as a complying with all Commission and Integrated System and intention to test national securities exchange.5 In Nasdaq rules, and properly clearing and the System during the month of July and addition, Nasdaq has designed the settling trades. The proposed rule early in August prior to the transition. Integrated System to comply with the change, as amended, is designed to Then, beginning August 28, 2006, requirements of Rules 610 and 611 of ensure Nasdaq’s readiness to comply Nasdaq would transition Nasdaq-listed Regulation NMS under the Act with Regulation NMS and facilitate securities in three groups over a three- (‘‘Regulation NMS’’).6Nasdaq has Nasdaq’s operation as a national week period with 15 to 30 Nasdaq-listed designated August 28, 2006 as the initial 7 securities exchange. stocks the first week, an additional 100– implementation date for this System. As the proposed rule change merges Nasdaq currently operates three 200 Nasdaq-listed stocks the second the three Nasdaq Facilities into a single execution systems: (1) The Nasdaq week, followed by the remaining platform, it also simplifies Nasdaq’s Market Center, formerly known as Nasdaq-listed stocks the third week. rules by merging five sets of rules (the SuperMontage (‘‘NMC Facility’’); (2) the Following the transition of Nasdaq 4600, 4700, 4900, 4950, and 5200 Brut ECN, a registered broker-dealer that stocks, Nasdaq would transition all non- Series) into two (the 4600 and 4750 is a Nasdaq subsidiary (‘‘Brut Facility’’); Nasdaq-listed securities (i.e., NYSE, Series). The proposed 4600 Series and (3) the INET ECN, which is American Stock Exchange (‘‘Amex’’), would govern Nasdaq participants, operated by Brut, LLC, a subsidiary of and regional-listed stocks). Nasdaq while the proposed 4750 Series would Nasdaq (‘‘INET Facility’’) (collectively, noted that it plans to monitor the govern the operation of the Integrated the ‘‘Nasdaq Facilities’’).8 Currently, the implementation and adjust the schedule System. The proposed rule change as needed to maintain an orderly Chamber of Commerce (‘‘USCC’’) to Nancy Morris, would delete in the following series of transition. dated June 8, 2006 (‘‘USCC Comment Letter’’); letter rules in their entirety: Series 4700 from David Colker, National Stock Exchange (Nasdaq Market Center—Execution III. Solicitation of Comments (‘‘NSX’’) to Chairman Cox, dated June 20, 2006 Services), Series 4900 (Brut Systems), Interested persons are invited to (‘‘NSX Comment Letter’’); letter from Kim Bang to Nancy Morris, dated June 23, 2006 (‘‘Bloomberg Series 4950 (INET System), and Series submit written data, views, and Comment Letter IV’’); and letter from Martin Kaye 5200 (Intermarket Trading System/ arguments concerning the foregoing, to Chairman Cox, dated July 3, 2006 (‘‘Track Computer Assisted Execution System). including whether Amendment Nos. 2 Comment Letter II’’). The proposed rule change would add and 3 are consistent with the Act. 5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 new Series 4750 (Nasdaq Market (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) Comments may be submitted by any of (‘‘Exchange Application Order’’). Center—Execution Services) and modify the following methods: 6 current Series 4600 (Requirements for See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 Electronic Comments (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005). Nasdaq Market Makers and Other 7 See Amendment No. 3. Nasdaq Market Center Participants), • Use the Commission’s Internet 8 In its Single Book Proposal, Nasdaq noted that, including renumbering rules governing comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ until January 31, 2006, INET ATS, Inc. was a registered broker-dealer and a member of the NASD. participants’ obligations to honor trades rules/sro.shtml); or On February 1, 2006, the INET broker-dealer and a member of the NASD. On February 1, 2006, the continue to operate the Brut Facility and INET 9 See supra note 3. INET broker-dealer was merged into the Brut Facility under the rubric of a single broker-dealer 10 The Commission notes that Amendment No. 3 broker-dealer which is a member of the New York until the Integrated System is fully operational. See replaces the August 14, 2006 implementation date Stock Exchange (‘‘NYSE’’). Nasdaq states that it will Single Book Proposal at 19589. that Nasdaq had proposed in Amendment No. 2.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41293

• Send an e-mail to rule- remaining two commenters did not ECNs out of the Nasdaq market. [email protected]. Please include File directly support or oppose the proposal. Bloomberg questioned how investors Number SR–NASDAQ–2006–001 on the Bloomberg submitted four comment and the national market system would subject line. letters. The Bloomberg Comment Letter be well served by eliminating the I was submitted prior to Nasdaq’s competitive liquidity and investor Paper Comments submission of Amendment No. 1. In that choices provided by ECNs from the • Send paper comments in triplicate letter, Bloomberg commented on one Nasdaq platform.20 to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, provision of the proposal that would The Bloomberg Comment Letter II Securities and Exchange Commission, have prohibited members from charging took issue with Nasdaq’s claim that the 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC access fees triggered by the execution of order delivery functionality of ECNs 20549–1090. 12 a quotation within the System. made Nasdaq less competitive by All submissions should refer to File Bloomberg suggested that such a slowing its execution services. Number SR–NASDAQ–2006–001. This provision would violate Section 6(e)(1) Bloomberg stated that Nasdaq’s claim file number should be included on the of the Act,13 which states that ‘‘no did not include any data or factual subject line if e-mail is used. To help the national securities exchange may support, and was ‘‘incredible on its Commission process and review your impose any schedule or fix rates of face.’’ 21 Bloomberg noted that Nasdaq comments more efficiently, please use commissions, allowances, discounts, or market participants entering orders only one method. The Commission will other fees to be charged by its could effectively choose to have their post all comments on the Commission’s members.’’ In addition, the Bloomberg orders sent to automatic execution Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Comment Letter I asserted that the Form participants; thus, if order delivery rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 19b–4 did not adequately discuss or ECNs were consistently slower or less submission, all subsequent justify the burdens on competition with efficient, they would suffer dire amendments, all written statements respect to the proposed prohibition on business consequences.22 The comment with respect to the proposed rule fees.14 Bloomberg recommended that letter also noted that Nasdaq itself change that are filed with the Nasdaq withdraw the provision of the routes orders to other market centers, Commission, and all written proposal regarding the prohibition of such as Archipelago, and that there was communications relating to the fees. In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq no indication that this routing slowed proposed rule change between the eliminated its proposal to prohibit down its system. Bloomberg stated that Commission and any person, other than members from charging access fees.15 its typical response time to incoming those that may be withheld from the In its second comment letter, Nasdaq orders was 5–20 milliseconds. public in accordance with the Bloomberg objected to proposed Nasdaq Bloomberg posited that slow quotation provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Rule 4623(b)(5), which would eliminate updates, rather than order delivery available for inspection and copying in the order delivery functionality from delays, were the true cause of Nasdaq’s the Commission’s Public Reference Nasdaq’s rules, because it would expose system slowdowns. Bloomberg noted Room. Copies of the filing also will be ECNs to the risk of dual liability.16 that the Nasdaq Quotation available for inspection and copying at Bloomberg said that dual liability was Dissemination Service feed had the principal office of the Exchange. All ‘‘a risk that in the past the Commission latencies of 500 milliseconds or more comments received will be posted found to justify requiring Nasdaq to during periods of high market activity.23 without change; the Commission does provide order delivery as opposed to Bloomberg also disagreed with not edit personal identifying execution delivery.’’ 17 Bloomberg information from submissions. You Nasdaq’s characterization of the opined that eliminating the order Division’s response to Question 5 of its should submit only information that delivery functionality, and thereby you wish to make available publicly. All Responses to Frequently Asked requiring all Nasdaq participants to Questions Concerning Rule 611 and submissions should refer to File accept automatic execution, would force 24 Number SR–NASDAQ–2006–001 and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS. In the ECNs to ‘‘abandon their current Single Book Proposal, Nasdaq stated should be submitted on or before business models and begin to act, August 10, 2006. that it did not believe that it could offer involuntarily, as dealers;’’ currently, order delivery functionality and also IV. Summary of Comments Received unlike market makers, ECNs act as satisfy Question 5’s standard of agency brokers and do not carry continuously providing ‘‘a response to The Commission received twelve inventory or act as principal.18 comment letters, representing seven incoming orders that does not Bloomberg also asserted that because significantly vary between orders different entities, on the proposed rule ECNs do not earn a market maker’s bid- 11 handled entirely within the SRO trading change. Five of the seven commenters ask spread, being forced to ‘‘eat’’ an either directly or indirectly operate facility and orders delivered to the execution could ‘‘never be profitable’’ ECN.’’ 25 In Bloomberg’s view, Question electronic communications networks for ECNs.19 Bloomberg concluded that (‘‘ECNs’’). Each of the ECN commenters this aspect of the proposal would force opposed the proposed rule change. The 20 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 2, 10. Bloomberg noted that the ‘‘independent ECNs’’ at 12 Bloomberg Comment Letter I at 1–2. risk represent some 15% of the total Nasdaq 11 See supra note 4. Other than the Bloomberg 13 15 U.S.C. 78f(e)(1). volume. Comment Letter I, all the comment letters discussed 14 Boomberg Comment Letter I at 2–4. 21 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 5. not only SR–NASDAQ–2006–001, but SR–NASD– 15 See infra Section V. 22 2006–048 as well. In NASD–2006–048, Nasdaq Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 5–6. 16 propoess to charge an order delivery fee of 10 cents Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 1. 23 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 6–8. per 100 shares to order delivery participants on its 17 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 8–9, note 7 24 Division of Market Regulation (‘‘Division’’), system. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43863 Responses to Frequently Asked Questions 53644 (April 13, 2006), 71 FR 20149 (April 19, (January 19, 2001), 66 FR 8020 (January 26, 2001) Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of Regulation 2006) (‘‘Order Delivery Fee Proposal’’). The (‘‘SuperMontage Order’’)), See also ECN Comment NMS, dated January 27, 2006 (‘‘NMS FAQs’’) summary here focuses on the comment letter Letter at 3. (available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/ discussions relating to SR–NASD–2006–001, rather 18 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 4; see also marketreg/rule611faq.pdf). than those relating to the Order Delivery Fee Citigroup Comment Letter at 1. 25 Single Book Proposal at 19591, citing NMS Proposal. 19 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 4. FAQs at Question 5.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

5 does not ‘‘authorize Nasdaq to drop decimal places for sub-$1.00 securities. platform is unable to attribute quotes for order delivery without considering the In addition, Citigroup asserted that the multiple participants, market factors the Division cited.’’ Bloomberg ADF was a more expensive facility for participants might be required to build believed that the Division suggested that ECNs, because it charged for quotation temporary connectivity to each ECN Nasdaq could ‘‘continue to deliver updates and did not have a general participating in NSX, which would orders to an ECN as long as Nasdaq’s revenue sharing plan. Citigroup also divert the industry’s attention and order-handling performance does not believed that the ADF provided resources at a time when significantly vary between orders inadequate order protection because it implementation of Regulation NMS and handled entirely within the SRO trading would not provide an aggregate top-of- industry consolidation issues were facility and orders delivered to the the-book quotation with protection already pushing programming capacity ECN.’’ 26 Rather than considering under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.33 to its limits.41 whether it could meet the conditions In support of its claim that the ADF Bloomberg also believed that Nasdaq, outlined by the Division in its NMS is not a viable alternative to Nasdaq, in its initial comment response letter, FAQs relating to order delivery Citigroup noted that daily volume on misstated the Commission’s duties functionality, Bloomberg believed that the ADF averaged approximately fifteen under the Act. Bloomberg opined that Nasdaq chose not to confront the issue. million shares compared to the total the Act put a special burden on self- Bloomberg believed that the ‘‘facts daily volume of approximately 1.7 regulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’) if an demonstrate that there is no valid basis billion shares for Nasdaq securities.34 SRO such as Nasdaq wished to change for Nasdaq’s proposed deletion of order Finally, Citigroup said that the an existing rule or system. Bloomberg delivery to ECNs that can respond Commission, in response to various believed that Nasdaq must demonstrate within milliseconds.’’ 27 ADF-related comments in the Nasdaq that such change is lawful, does not Bloomberg also argued that the exchange application context,35 unfairly discriminate among members, proposed rule change was inconsistent indicated that the ADF was not a viable and that any resulting burden on with the Act, in that Nasdaq’s analysis alternative to the Nasdaq Market members is necessary or appropriate in of the proposal’s impact on competition Center.36 furtherance of the purposes of the Act, failed to consider ‘‘the liquidity that In its third comment letter, which Bloomberg contrasted with an ECN participants provide to investors, responding to Nasdaq’s initial comment SRO’s own commercial purposes. In 37 the advantage this brings to investors response letter, Bloomberg endorsed addition, Bloomberg believed that and the internal discipline and drive to the ‘‘main thrust’’ of Citigroup’s whether other national securities innovation within Nasdaq itself that is comment letter, in particular supporting exchanges had similar systems should provided by the ECNs.’’28 Citigroup’s assertion that the ADF was not be relevant to the Commission’s Bloomberg posited that the proposed not a viable alternative to Nasdaq, analysis.42 rule change was inconsistent with pointing to the ADF’s connectivity Bloomberg also posited that the data Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 29 because it issues and its lack of capability to Nasdaq provided in its initial comment discriminated unfairly against ECNs in provide an aggregate top-of-book response letter pertaining to order that the only order delivery participants quotation under Rule 611 of Regulation delivery transactions was contextually on Nasdaq are ECNs. Bloomberg also NMS.38 Bloomberg also reiterated its insufficient. Bloomberg pointed to the opined that the proposed rule change disagreement with Nasdaq’s assertion speed of Nasdaq’s quotation updates as was inconsistent with Nasdaq’s that retaining order delivery would slow a factor in order failures, and noted that obligations under the Act to promote a down the Nasdaq market.39 In addition, Nasdaq had not provided data regarding free and open market and a national Bloomberg emphasized that several the speed of quotation updates during market system. In addition, Bloomberg other ECNs shared their concerns about high volume openings and closings. believed that the proposal would violate the proposal.40 Bloomberg also suggested that, rather Section 6(b)(8) of the Act 30 by imposing Bloomberg stated that, contrary to than removing order delivery burdens on competition that are not Nasdaq’s assertions in its initial functionality from its system, Nasdaq necessary or appropriate in furtherance comment response letter, the existing should establish rules to mandate faster of the purposes of the Act. Finally, platform of the NSX is not a viable quotation updates. In addition, Bloomberg noted that Section 3(f) of the venue for multiple participants, Bloomberg proposed that Nasdaq could Act 31 requires the Commission to particularly in light of its limited prevent some ECN outliers from consider whether the proposed rule capacity. While acknowledging that exceeding its 5-second response time change would promote competition.32 BATS had moved from Nasdaq to NSX, rule by mandating a 500-millisecond or In its comment letter, Citigroup stated Bloomberg pointed out that, even 50-millisecond rule.43 its belief that the National Association notwithstanding that BATS is a very Bloomberg also noted that, based on of Securities Dealers, Inc.’s (‘‘NASD’’) new ECN and has a relatively light share public statements of Nasdaq and the Alternative Display Facility (‘‘ADF’’) volume, BATS experienced a significant Commission, an order delivery ECN currently does not provide a viable decrease in trading volume following its would have reasonably believed that alternative to the Nasdaq platform. move to NSX. In addition, Bloomberg either order delivery functionality Citigroup cited the ADF’s connectivity argued that, because the current NSX would remain on the Nasdaq system costs, inability to quote NYSE- and indefinitely or an order delivery ban Amex-listed securities, and inability to 33 Citigroup Comment Letter at 2–3. would not occur until the fall of 2006 34 44 display sub-penny quotations to four Citigroup Comment Letter at 3. at the earliest. Bloomberg contended 35 See supra note 5. that it was not seeking to slow down 36 Citigroup Comment Letter at 3, quoting 26 Nasdaq’s Single Book Proposal, but Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 7. Exchange Application Order at 57–58 (referring to 27 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 7–8. comments from the Securities Industry Association rather Nasdaq had accelerated the 28 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 8. and Instinet). 29 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 37 See infra note 75. 41 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 2–3. 30 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 38 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 1. 42 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 4–6. 31 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 39 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 2. 43 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 6–8. 32 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 9–11. 40 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 2. 44 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 8–9.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41295

timing of the new system’s roll-out. In maintain its order delivery functionality difference between the two dates was addition, Bloomberg noted that the roll- would imply an affirmative obligation crucial, and stated that the out of the Single Book Proposal is not for other national securities exchanges ‘‘Commission understood that necessary to the commencement of to provide the same.53 Finally, additional time beyond September 30, Nasdaq’s operation as an exchange and Bloomberg and Track requested that if 2006 might be prudent and ‘‘would visit needless disruption and the Commission decided to approve the necessary.’’ 63 dislocation not only on the independent proposed rule change, more time should Bloomberg also reiterated its prior ECNs but on the market as a whole’’ and be given to the ECNs to find another arguments regarding the need for would ‘‘unfairly disadvantage venue to operate their business.54 business certainty and that Nasdaq had independent ECNs and regional Similarly, the USCC encouraged the given the expectation that its Single exchange competitors, such as NSX.’’ 45 Commission to, as a matter of good Book Proposal would be rolled out in Bloomberg also believed that the process, ‘‘consider the need for December 2006. Bloomberg said that, elimination of order delivery appropriate transition periods’’ should because of the resulting uncertainty and functionality would burden competition the proposed rule change be adopted.55 confusion of Nasdaq’s earlier proposed for order flow in Nasdaq-listed In response to Nasdaq’s fourth roll-out date, ECNs have had to explore securities. Bloomberg claimed that comment letter regarding technical and develop, at substantial cost, a Nasdaq acquired INET and Brut ‘‘with a difficulties relating to INET’s number of competing alternative view to curtailing competition for order participation in the NSX,56 NSX scenarios; for example, Bloomberg has flow in Nasdaq securities’’ and was now submitted a comment letter to describe explored an interim migration to ‘‘attempting to perfect its monopoly by its relationship with Nasdaq and INET, another platform, temporarily crushing the remaining independent in particular noting that NSX’s participating in Nasdaq while trying to ECNs.’’ 46 Finally, Bloomberg believed dissemination of quotations for Nasdaq prevent double execution, and that Nasdaq, in its initial comment may be slow because of Nasdaq’s own ultimately migrating to an exchange response letter, misstated the internal system delays.57 NSX also platform that offers order delivery and Commission’s authority when it said noted that it intended to build a robust, quotation display. Bloomberg stated that that the Commission lacked the state-of-the-art trading system that the lack of certainty has ‘‘impeded statutory authority to provide a delay. should help minimize future problems sound business planning and threatens Bloomberg believed that the related to the capacity of, or linkage to, to constrict investor choice and the Commission has clear authority to its market.58 development of sound market require Nasdaq to provide an adequate On June 23, 2006, Bloomberg alternatives.’’ 64 transition period in its proposal, and submitted its fourth comment letter, Bloomberg also disputed Nasdaq’s could request that Nasdaq amend its welcoming the USCC Comment Letter’s statement regarding its participation in proposal to build in such a delay.47 call for an appropriate transition period, Nasdaq’s Opening and Closing Crosses, The remaining ECN commenters each and describing Nasdaq’s third and stating that it has had to develop special 59 endorsed the positions set forth in the fourth response letters as containing facilities to integrate during such times Bloomberg Comment Letter II.48 Some misleading statements and false with Nasdaq and that, during those 60 commenters also expressed their assertions. Bloomberg believed that limited periods, Bloomberg simply concern not only about short-term Nasdaq’s characterization in its third operates as an order-routing system.65 In market dislocation and disruption,49 but comment letter that the two ECNs addition, Bloomberg also disputed also regarding the long-term loss of operating on NSX (BATS and INET) various characterizations by Nasdaq, investor choice.50 In particular, were cohabitating with little disruption including its NSX participation, Bloomberg stated that, since Nasdaq’s contrasted with Nasdaq’s fourth percentage of total Nasdaq trading acquisition of the Brut and INET ECNs response letter which stated that the volume attributable to order delivery NSX platform was experiencing severe in the past two years, trading in the 61 executions, and the data Nasdaq Nasdaq market had become more capacity overages and delays. In presented with regard to Bloomberg’s concentrated and less competitive. addition, Bloomberg said that Nasdaq’s response times in early May 2006.66 Bloomberg opined that Nasdaq was claim in its fourth comment letter that Bloomberg also again suggested that driving other ECNs off its system to the Commission had ordered INET to Nasdaq could enforce its 5-second allow it ‘‘to charge monopoly rents for cease quoting in NSX by September 1, response time rule or even impose a 2006 was untrue, noting that the access to its market and for market more stringent 50-millisecond rule.67 Commission merely recognized a data.’’ 51 In addition, some of the Finally, Bloomberg believed that, Nasdaq representation that it would commenters felt that Nasdaq’s proposal contrary to Nasdaq’s assertions in its cease quoting in NSX and the correct represented a for-profit exchange using response letters, it was proper for the date was September 30, 2006.62 the regulatory process to eliminate Commission to consider comment Bloomberg emphasized that the competition.52 letters received after the comment Bloomberg also noted that it did not period deadline had expired.68 53 See Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 11. believe that requiring Nasdaq to 54 See Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 11 (delay On July 3, 2006, Track submitted a in the effective date); Track Comment Letter I at 2 second comment letter to clarify to the 45 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 9–10. (phased-in approach). Commission that it was still a 46 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 10. 55 See USCC Comment Letter at 1–2. participant in the Nasdaq Market 47 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 10–11. 56 See infra note 99. Center, reiterate its comments submitted 57 48 See BATS Comment Letter, Track Comment See NSX Comment Letter at 1–2. previously as part of the ECN Comment Letter I, Knight Comment Letter. 58 See NSX Comment Letter at 1–2. 49 See BATS Comment Letter, Track Comment 59 See infra Nasdaq Response Letter III and 63 Letter I at 1, Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 2. Nasdaq Response Letter IV, notes 92 and 99. See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 3. 64 50 See BATS Comment Letter, Bloomberg 60 See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 1–2 and See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 4. Comment Letter II at 2. 4–5. 65 See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 5. 51 See Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 2. 61 See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 2. 66 See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 5–7. 52 See BATS Comment Letter, Track Comment 62 See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 3 (citing 67 See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 7–8. Letter I at 1, Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 1, 3. Nasdaq Rule 4720). 68 See Bloomberg Comment Letter IV at 8.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41296 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Letter, and support the comment letters other exchanges and reduced the overall complying with the Regulation NMS of Citigroup, USCC, and Bloomberg.69 quality of its marketplace. Access and Order Protection Rules to Track emphasized that Bloomberg was Nasdaq also defended its proposal to prevent locked and crossed markets and not the sole party objecting to aspects of require all of its participants to accept trade throughs.’’ 76 Nasdaq contended the Single Book Proposal, but that it and automatic execution by eliminating its that Bloomberg’s sole dispute with the other ECNs were interested parties as order delivery functionality. Nasdaq Single Book Proposal was Nasdaq’s well. Track stated that it continued to stated that its order delivery proposal to eliminate the order delivery execute significant business through functionality is unique among functionality that is available only to Nasdaq’s platform. In addition, it noted exchanges and that no other exchange ECNs and available only on Nasdaq.77 that only one percent of its volume was offers order delivery to its participants. Nasdaq stated that Bloomberg was on the ADF, which it did not believe Nasdaq asserted that such functionality unable to identify any requirement in was a viable place to conduct its is ‘‘expensive, complex, and detrimental the Act that a national securities business. Track believed that NSX’s to system performance, thereby exchange offer order delivery trading platform currently under increasing the cost and complexity of functionality, and noted that no other development, which it expected to Nasdaq’s trading systems and exchange has been required to, or include order delivery functionality, decreasing its performance.’’ Nasdaq chosen to, offer such functionality. would be a viable alternative. However, also believed that order delivery Nasdaq stated that any requirement to Track noted that the new NSX platform discourages order flow providers from offer such functionality should apply was not scheduled to be ready until sending orders to Nasdaq for processing equally to all SRO markets.78 In September 2006. Adding in two months because market participants cannot addition, Nasdaq rejected Bloomberg’s to ramp up its volume on the new predict whether their orders will be claim that it was unfairly discriminating system, Track requested that it be able delivered or automatically executed, against ‘‘independent’’ ECNs to the to continue to operate on Nasdaq’s thereby hurting Nasdaq’s ability to advantage of its own ECN facilities (i.e., platform until the NSX platform is compete with other markets.73 Brut and INET), because this proposal operational and capable of handling the In addition, Nasdaq noted that, within would integrate the Brut and INET volumes of business required by the its own system, the presence of order execution facilities with the Nasdaq ECNs. Track also noted that it planned delivery negatively impacts the Market Center into a single trading to begin testing on the new platform in competition between market makers, platform.79 July 2006.70 Track stated that its only ECNs/alternative trading systems Nasdaq emphasized that its proposal issue with the Single Book Proposal was (‘‘ATSs’’), and agency broker-dealers, would not exclude ECNs but rather it Nasdaq’s decision to accelerate its roll- because market makers and agency would welcome them to participate in out timetable for its integrated system broker-dealers (who are required to Nasdaq provided that they accept because it provided too brief a period participate in Nasdaq via automatic automatic execution. Nasdaq opined for migration to workable venues, and execution) view themselves as that the ECN commenters’ systems were that ‘‘[a]ll other matters with regard to disadvantaged relative to ECNs and fully automated, and that they had Nasdaq’s Exchange status are not at ATSs that can choose to participate declined to participate in Nasdaq via issue with Track ECN.’’ 71 either via automatic execution or order automatic execution to ‘‘isolate orders delivery. Nasdaq believed that removing V. Nasdaq’s Response to Comments within [their] own system[s] and to the order delivery functionality would preserve internal executions as much as level the playing field between its In Amendment No. 1, Nasdaq possible.’’ 80 Nasdaq also noted that market participants. Finally, Nasdaq addressed the Bloomberg Comment several agency brokers participate in noted that its ability to provide the Letter I and the ECN Comment Letter. Nasdaq, accept automatic executions, fastest, fairest, and most efficient system Nasdaq revised its statement on burden and manage their risk of double possible was particularly important on competition to state that it operates executions by cancelling their quote or given the Commission’s adoption of in an intensely competitive global order on Nasdaq before matching an Regulation NMS.74 marketplace where its ability to compete order internally.81 is ‘‘based in large part on the quality of On May 8, 2006, Nasdaq again responded to the comments regarding Nasdaq stated that Bloomberg could its trading systems, the overall quality of conduct its business elsewhere and that its market and its attractiveness to the the proposed rule change.75 Nasdaq stated that the Single Book Proposal the Act does not require Bloomberg to largest number of investors, as measured post its orders in Nasdaq. As an by speed, likelihood and cost of would ‘‘benefit investors by offering a faster, fairer, more efficient and more example, Nasdaq noted that other ECNs executions, as well as spreads, fairness, have elected to move their business to 72 transparent system that executes trades and transparency.’’ Nasdaq asserted regional exchanges or the ADF. Nasdaq that its Single Book Proposal would in strict price/time priority; promote competition by allowing Nasdaq to said that Bloomberg’s contention was have a pro-competitive effect by based on the false premise of a Nasdaq reducing overall trading costs, increase efficiency, decrease overall trading costs, and provide better service monopoly, and that Bloomberg was a increasing price competition, and privileged Nasdaq participant, as spurring further initiative and to market participants; promote the development of the national market opposed to a ‘‘prisoner’’ of Nasdaq’s innovation among market centers and system.82 market participants. In addition, Nasdaq system by integrating separate trading systems into a single pool of exchange Nasdaq reiterated its concerns about believed that its discontinuation of the the delay in executions caused by order order delivery functionality was pro- liquidity for market participants to access; and improve regulation by competitive, because such functionality 76 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 1. harmed its competitiveness vis-a`-vis 77 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 2. 73 Id. 78 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 2. 74 See Single Book Proposal, supra note 3. 69 See Track Comment Letter II at 1. 79 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 2. 75 See Letter from Edward S. Knight, Executive 70 80 See Track Comment Letter II at 2. Vice President and General Counsel, Nasdaq to Nasdaq Response Letter I at 3. 71 See Track Comment Letter II at 2. Morris, dated May 8, 2006 (‘‘Nasdaq Response 81 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 3, note 6. 72 See Single Book Proposal at 19596. Letter I’’). 82 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 4.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41297

delivery. Nasdaq stated that order flow to the NSX in a matter of weeks, stocks prior to Nasdaq’s operation as an delivery interactions were more time and that Nasdaq’s filing provides exchange.91 consuming than automatic execution Bloomberg with over three months to On June 8, 2006, Nasdaq submitted to interactions, and that unlike automatic make the system changes needed for the Commission a third letter, execution, orders delivered to an ECN similar migration. Nasdaq also stated responding to the Bloomberg Comment could be rejected if the shares had been that there was no requirement under the Letter III.92 In this letter, Nasdaq accessed by an ECN’s direct subscribers. Act to ‘‘accommodate the business reiterated its belief that Bloomberg Nasdaq also presented data relating to schedule of any individual market could participate in Nasdaq via order delivery during the week of March participant’’ as it negotiated ‘‘a automatic execution, that Bloomberg 13, 2006, which included a so-called beneficial arrangement to post quotes in was technologically capable of quoting ‘‘expiration Friday’’ on March 17th. another venue’’ and that the in the NASD ADF ‘‘in a matter of days,’’ During that week, Nasdaq stated that: Commission was directed by Section and that Bloomberg did in fact have a 100 percent of automatic execution 19(b) of the Act to ‘‘determine promptly number of alternatives to being an order orders that Nasdaq attempted to execute whether a rule proposal is consistent delivery participant in Nasdaq.93 actually executed; 14 percent of total with the Act and to approve or reject it Nasdaq also disagreed with Bloomberg’s orders that Nasdaq delivered to order accordingly.’’87 description of NSX’s current operation delivery participants failed to execute On May 26, 2006, Nasdaq submitted and pointed out that two ECNs, INET and for one order delivery participant to the Commission a second letter, and BATS, operate in that market with the overall failure rate exceeded 25 responding to the Citigroup Comment little disruption.94 In addition, Nasdaq percent; 55.6 percent of orders delivered Letter.88 Nasdaq requested that the reiterated the critical nature of its Single to order delivery participants prior to Commission disregard Citigroup’s Book Proposal, given the competition it 9:30:15 failed to execute; 27.9 percent of comment letter because Nasdaq asserted faces both in the United States and orders delivered to order delivery that it was untimely filed and was an abroad. Nasdaq stated that Single Book participants between 9:30:15 and attempt to use the statutory notice and would be ‘‘lightning fast’’ and produce 9:30:30 failed to execute; 12.7 percent of comment period to delay consideration faster, more certain executions. In orders delivered to order delivery of the Single Book Proposal.89 addition, Nasdaq stated that the participants between 9:30:30 to 3:59:30 Nonetheless, Nasdaq responded to the proposal would transform its market failed to execute; and prior to 9:30:15, substantive elements of the letter and into a strict price-time priority venue, three order delivery participants had disputed the assertions by Citigroup promote competition, decrease overall mean response times of over four, nine, regarding the ADF’s viability. In trading costs, provide better service to and twenty seconds per order during particular, Nasdaq noted that the market participants, and allow Nasdaq that week.83 predecessor of Citigroup’s current to comply with the access and order In addition to the time and response OnTrade ECN, NexTrade, had been protection provisions of Regulation issues, Nasdaq stated that it was costly quoting on the ADF for over three years. NMS.95 to maintain the order delivery Nasdaq also disputed Citigroup’s Nasdaq also stated that Bloomberg has functionality because it demanded assertion that the ADF’s cost of a negative impact on Nasdaq’s ‘‘disproportionate system capacity and connectivity was an ‘‘economic competitiveness, pointing to the period unique specifications, requirements, disincentive,’’ instead characterizing it immediately following the market’s and programming not available to or as ‘‘a cost of doing business’’ and stating opening as an example.96 Nasdaq noted needed by the vast majority of Nasdaq that Nasdaq’s order routing technology that, during the first week of May 2006, participants * * *.’’ Nasdaq supports connectivity to any ADF during the trading period prior to emphasized that these are costs no other participant whose quotation is 9:30:15 am, Bloomberg’s mean response SRO incurs. Nasdaq also believed that displayed through the ADF in the time to delivered orders was over 5 ECN response times and rejection rates consolidated quotation.90 Nasdaq also seconds per order.97 Finally, Nasdaq created strong disincentives for market reiterated that, like Bloomberg, disagreed with Bloomberg’s contention participants to use Nasdaq’s systems Citigroup failed to mention that scores that eliminating order delivery was because of the uncertainty and reduced of agency brokers participate on Nasdaq discriminatory, stating that it did not 84 speed of an order execution. In systems and accept automatic see ‘‘how requiring all market addition, Nasdaq believed that time and executions, managing their dual liability participants to use identical automatic response issues would be exacerbated risks by cancelling their quotations or functionality [could] be considered under Regulation NMS, and expressed orders on Nasdaq prior to matching discriminatory.’’ 98 concern again about order delivery their orders internally. Finally, Nasdaq On June 9, 2006, Nasdaq submitted to making Nasdaq a ‘‘slow’’ market or asserted that Citigroup misstated that the Commission a fourth letter, exposing it to ‘‘self-help’’ declarations there would be no alternative facility for describing INET’s technological 85 by other trading centers. NYSE- and Amex-listed securities and problems in NSX.99 Nasdaq stated that, Finally, Nasdaq objected to distorted the Commission’s statements on June 8, 2006, senior officers of the Bloomberg’s request for a delay in the in the Exchange Application Order, effective date of an approval. Nasdaq noting that it believed that the passage 91 Nasdaq Response Letter II at 2. believed that this would simply ‘‘delay cited by Citigroup related to the 92 See Letter from Jeffrey S. Davis, Senior Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq to Morris, dated the time when investors receive the Commission’s requirement that there be benefits offered by a faster, fairer, more June 8, 2006 (‘‘Nasdaq Response Letter III’’). an alternative facility for non-Nasdaq 93 efficient and more transparent Nasdaq Response Letter III at 2–3, 4–5. 94 system.’’ 86 In addition, Nasdaq noted Nasdaq Response Letter III at 3. 87 95 Nasdaq Response Letter III at 3–4. that BATS was able to shift its order Nasdaq Response Letter I at 7. 88 See Letter from Edward S. Knight, Executive 96 Nasdaq Response Letter III at 4. Vice President and General Counsel, Nasdaq to 97 Nasdaq Response Letter III at 4. 83 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 5–6. Morris, dated May 26, 2006 (‘‘Nasdaq Response 98 Nasdaq Response Letter III at 4–5. 84 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 6. Letter II’’). 99 See Letter from Edward S. Knight, Executive 85 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 6. 89 Nasdaq Response Letter II at 1–2. Vice President and General Counsel, Nasdaq to Cox, 86 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 6. 90 Nasdaq Response Letter II at 2. dated June 9, 2006 (‘‘Nasdaq Response Letter IV’’).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41298 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

NSX notified Nasdaq that the NSX was necessary or appropriate in furtherance • There are no viable alternatives, ‘‘experiencing severe capacity overages of the purposes of the Act. including the NASD ADF and regional and quotation delays in its core systems exchanges, to participation in Nasdaq; A. Elimination of Order Delivery • Nasdaq is using its regulatory status * * * [and] * * * requested that Function Nasdaq cause INET to cease sending to perfect a monopoly over Nasdaq- Nasdaq’s proposal would require that listed securities; and quotations to the NSX and stated that • NSX was considering terminating all Nasdaq participants accept automatic Order delivery does not have a INET’s ability to send quotations to executions and would eliminate order negative impact on the performance of delivery processing in the newly NSX.’’ 100 Nasdaq stated that the Nasdaq’s system, nor would it place integrated system. Nasdaq’s primary Nasdaq at any undue risk in light of possibility of future technology failures rationale for this aspect of the proposal Regulation NMS. was increasing as message traffic has is as follows: The Commission finds that this increased significantly across the • Order delivery functionality is proposal does not unfairly discriminate industry. Nasdaq stated that it was expensive, complex, and detrimental to among market participants, nor does it taking all available, prudent steps to its system and decreases system impose any burden on competition that avoid future disruptions, and that performance and no other national is not necessary or appropriate in approval of the Single Book Proposal securities exchange is required to furtherance of the Act. would enable it to remove all quotations provide this service; from NSX and avoid such technology • Order delivery functionality 1. Competition Issues failures.101 hampers Nasdaq’s ability to compete by The Commission believes that the discouraging order flow providers from Single Book Proposal is an appropriate VI. Commission’s Findings and Order sending orders to Nasdaq because initiative by Nasdaq to enhance the Granting Accelerated Approval of market participants cannot predict quality of its exchange through Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 whether their orders will be delivered or integrating its three trading platforms automatically executed; into a single unified system, to add As discussed fully throughout this • approval order, the Commission has Order delivery functionality efficiency in executions and to increase carefully reviewed the proposed rule negatively impacts competition between overall market transparency. The market makers, ECNs/ATSs, and agency change, as amended, the comment Commission has long held the view that broker-dealers, because market makers letters, and Nasdaq responses, and finds ‘‘competition and innovation are and agency broker-dealers (who are that the proposed rule change, as essential to the health of the securities required to participate in Nasdaq via markets. Indeed, competition is one of amended, is consistent with the automatic execution) are disadvantaged the hallmarks of the national market requirements of the Act and the rules relative to ECNs and ATSs that can system.’’ 108 The Commission notes that and regulations thereunder applicable to choose to participate either via the notion of competition is inextricably a national securities exchange and, in automatic execution or order delivery; tied with the notion of economic particular, the requirements of Section • Nasdaq’s system is completely efficiency, and the Act seeks to 6(b) of the Act.102 Specifically, the voluntary and ECNs are not required to encourage market behavior that Commission finds that the proposed quote or participate in Nasdaq; and promotes such efficiency, lower costs, • rule change, as amended, is consistent In light of the competition fostered and better service in the interest of 103 with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that by Regulation NMS, Nasdaq needs to investors and the general public.109 it is designed to promote just and provide the fastest, fairest, and most Therefore, the Commission believes that equitable principles of trade, to foster efficient system. the appropriate analysis to determine a cooperation and coordination with Nearly all of the commenters opposed proposal’s competitive impact is to persons engaged in regulating, clearing, the proposed elimination of Nasdaq’s weigh the proposal’s overall benefits 105 settling, processing information with order delivery functionality. The and costs to competition based on the respect to, and facilitating transactions commenters suggested that the proposal particular facts involved, such as in securities, to remove impediments to was inconsistent with Sections examining whether the proposal would 106 107 and perfect the mechanism of a free and 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Act in promote economically efficient open market and a national market that it unfairly discriminated between execution of securities and fair system, and, in general, to protect brokers or dealers and imposed a competition between and among investors and the public interest; and is burden on competition that is not exchange markets and other market not designed to permit unfair necessary or appropriate in furtherance centers, as well as fair competition discrimination between customers, of the purposes of the Act. The main between the participants of a particular issuers, brokers, or dealers, or to assertions by the commenters are as market. follows: regulate by virtue of any authority • The Commission notes that Nasdaq conferred by the Act matters not related The automatic execution operates in a competitive global to the purposes of the Act or the requirement would expose ECNs to dual exchange marketplace for listings, administration of the exchange. The liability risks; financial products, and market services • The automatic execution Commission also finds that the and competes in such an environment requirement would force ECNs out of proposed rule change, as amended, is with other market centers, including the Nasdaq market and have a negative consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the national securities exchanges, ECNs, impact on their customers; 104 and other alternative trading systems, Act in that it does not impose any • The costs to move to another for the privilege of providing market burden on competition that is not facility would be burdensome for ECNs; and listing services to broker-dealers 100 and issuers. Within Nasdaq’s systems, Nasdaq Response Letter IV at 1. 105 See, e.g., Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 9; 101 Nasdaq Response Letter IV at 1–2. Knight Comment Letter at 2; Track Comment Letter ECNs and ATSs compete with market 102 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). I at 1. 103 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 106 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 108 See SuperMontage Order at 8049. 104 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 107 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8). 109 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41299

makers and agency broker-dealers for rather than the order flow that is only Nasdaq’s determination of whether it is retail and institutional order flow. Thus, internally available on the ECN books to best to retain the order delivery the Commission views Nasdaq as an its subscribers.113 In fact, Nasdaq asserts functionality. individual market as well as a piece of that agency-brokers on its system ECNs also assert that the proposal is the larger, overall market structure. currently operate and manage their dual unfairly discriminatory and it imposes a The ECN’s opposition to the instant liability risks in that manner. The burden on competition that is not proposal is that it will cause a various ECN comment letters opposing necessary or appropriate in furtherance disruption to their manner of doing the elimination of Nasdaq’s order of the Act because it would force ECNs business, and such operational changes delivery functionality have not disputed to leave the Nasdaq market to operate are potentially burdensome and costly. the validity of this claim. either in another SRO facility or the Under the proposal, ECNs that choose to Nasdaq has also stated that its current NASD ADF. The commenters argue continue operating in Nasdaq will have order delivery functionality is costly to there are no viable alternatives for the to accept automatic executions and operate and requires disproportionate ECN business model in the marketplace, internally manage their quotes to system capacity, unique specifications, and thus the Nasdaq order delivery prevent dual executions of the same and additional programming. In service, which accommodates the ECN order, while ECNs that opt to use addition, Nasdaq has emphasized that, business model, must be preserved. The another SRO facility to display their though ECNs may provide an automated Commission does not share this view. order flow may face reduced evaluation and response to orders, the As an initial matter, the Commission connectivity and higher costs. That a time required to send message traffic notes that the Act does not require proposed rule change to an SRO’s back and forth between Nasdaq and Nasdaq to retain a market structure that trading system requires a market ECNs involves delays that do not exist supports the business operations of participant to reevaluate its business in the case of automatic executions. ECNs. Further, ECNs may post their model, develop new technology, or This potential for delay, as well the orders in an SRO other than Nasdaq. reprogram its current systems is not possibility that an order could be The Commission believes that ECNs something that is unique to Nasdaq and rejected by an order delivery ECN, gives have a variety of options if they moreover is not something that is a measure of uncertainty to orders determine that, as a result of this unique to ECNs. Invariably, any entered on Nasdaq, which may impede proposal, they should forego Nasdaq proposed rule change to a fundamental Nasdaq’s ability to compete with other participation. For example, ECNs may function of an SRO market (e.g., display, markets and provide faster executions decide to post their liquidity to another execution, trade-reporting, etc.) will with increased certainty.114 SRO. In the past ECNs such as BATS, require certain changes by the affected Nasdaq has stated legitimate Brut, Instinet, Island, INET, market participants; and more than regulatory and operational reasons for Archipelago, and Attain have moved likely such changes must be effectuated eliminating the order delivery service. some or all of their activities from by a technological solution in an For instance, Nasdaq is concerned that Nasdaq to other trading venues. increasingly automated national market order delivery may cause the System to Specifically, INET quotes on NSX; more system. be deemed ‘‘slow’’ under Rule 611 of recently, BATS has also moved from As stated above, ECNs currently using Regulation NMS. Although it appears Nasdaq to NSX. Archipelago, through Nasdaq’s order delivery functionality that under most operating conditions, ArcaEx, became the equities trading may continue to participate in Nasdaq order delivery may not pose a facility of the Pacific Exchange, Inc. via automatic execution. Rather than significant risk that the System would Other ECNs, including OnTrade (and its excluding ECNs, Nasdaq is simply be a ‘‘slow’’ market or expose it to the predecessor, NexTrade), quote in the NASD’s ADF. Before Brut’s purchase by requiring ECNs to participate in Nasdaq election of the ‘‘self-help’’ exception Nasdaq, Brut quoted on the Boston on an automatic execution basis, as under Rule 611(b)(1) of Regulation other participants are currently required Stock Exchange. NMS, Nasdaq raises legitimate concerns Accordingly, ECNs that do not want to do. According to Bloomberg, order that, during periods of increased market delivery is necessary because unlike to operate under the Nasdaq’s Exchange activity or system stress, the order Rules have other options at this time, market makers, ECNs act as agency delivery functionality could place its brokers and do not carry inventory or and other alternatives for ECNs to market at risk. participate as order delivery systems are act as principal. Without the order The Commission recognizes ECNs delivery functionality, Bloomberg emerging. Thus, while ECNs may not could pose differing levels of risk to the view the presently available alternatives contends that ECNs would be exposed Integrated System and that normally 110 to Nasdaq to be as appealing as to dual liability. Bloomberg says that ECNs may, as Bloomberg commented, ECNs would be involuntarily forced to participating on Nasdaq via order generally be able to respond within 5– delivery, the Commission nevertheless act as dealers and abandon their current 20 milliseconds; 115 however, Nasdaq business models.111 Nasdaq responds believes viable alternatives to Nasdaq has valid concerns over the response participation exist for ECNs. that ECNs could participate as Nasdaq times of its market participants and the automatic execution participants as a. Alternatives to Nasdaq. In their potential for such response times to comment letters, ECNs have been agency brokers by managing dual negatively impact its entire market. liability risks by cancelling their quote/ particularly critical of the capabilities of Thus, the prospect of a single the NASD ADF and suggested that it order on Nasdaq before matching the participant’s slow response time 112 does not constitute a true viable order internally. This risk affecting the protected quotation status management objective could be alternative to the Nasdaq market of the entire market under Regulation because it lacks: (1) An execution technologically achieved by ECNs NMS is a valid consideration in giving priority to execution of the facility; (2) adequate order protection and quote attribution; (3) favorable publicly displayed order in Nasdaq 113 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 3, note 6. revenue sharing plans; (4) sub-penny 114 Nasdaq Response Letter I at 4–6. See also 110 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 4. Nasdaq Response Letter III at 3–5. quoting up to four decimal places for 111 See, e.g., Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 4. 115 See, e.g., Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 7– securities priced less than $1.00; and (5) 112 See Nasdaq Response Letter I at 3, note 6. 8. connectivity to ECN participants.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41300 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

However, the Commission, on various NASD–99–53,122 Nasdaq recast its satisfies its obligations for Nasdaq occasions, has determined that the execution system as the SuperMontage securities under Rules 601 and 602 of NASD ADF provides an alternative system, accepting orders directly from Regulation NMS through the ADF. quotation facility for Nasdaq agency brokers, subject to automatic One commenter, Citigroup, suggested securities.116 The NASD ADF does not execution. In response to criticisms that the Commission ‘‘recently indicated have all the advantages and liquidity of raised by ECNs, SuperMontage retained that ADF is not a viable alternative to an active exchange like Nasdaq, and an order delivery functionality for the Nasdaq Market Center; referring to thus may not currently be the optimal ECNs. comments received in response to the facility for an ECN and its particular Because of concerns raised about the Nasdaq application for registration as an business model; nonetheless, the NASD monopoly position of Nasdaq as the exchange.’’ In this regard, the ADF facility has the basic requirements residual quote and trade facility of the Commission believes that its response to of a quotation facility for Nasdaq NASD, in approving the SuperMontage, Nasdaq exchange application comments securities, thus providing market the Commission conditioned its has been misconstrued. The participants a venue other than Nasdaq operation on the NASD’s creation of an Commission did not intend to imply in which to display their quotes. alternate display facility that would that the ADF is not a viable alternative The history of ECN participation in permit NASD members to operate to the Nasdaq Market Center. Instead, in Nasdaq is instructive. Nasdaq began as outside of Nasdaq and still comply with response to the aforementioned a quotation, and then trading reporting, their regulatory obligations under the comments the Commission reiterated its facility of the NASD, where quotes and Order Handling Rules and Regulation general belief, a theme initially voiced trades of securities not listed on an ATS.123 The Commission also required in the SuperMontage Order and again in exchange could be displayed. Later, that the NASD ADF be designed to the order approving the operation of the Nasdaq displayed quotes and trades of identify through the central processor NASD ADF, that it would not be exchange-listed stocks. Nasdaq satisfied the identity of the NASD member that ‘‘consistent with the Exchange Act to the NASD’s obligation to operate a is the source of each quote and provide allow the NASD to separate from the system to collect quotes and trades a market neutral linkage to the Nasdaq [Nasdaq] facilities by which it satisfies arising under now Rules 601 and 602 of and other marketplaces, but not an its regulatory obligations without having Regulation NMS.117 execution service.124 Later, in approving alternative means to do what the In 1996, the Commission adopted the a pilot program for the operation of the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder require. Accordingly, the Nasdaq Order Handling Rules,118 enabling ECNs NASD ADF, the Commission re-stated Exchange may not begin operating as a to comply with a requirement to the purpose first raised in the national securities exchange and cease publicly display market maker quotes SuperMontage Order that the ‘‘ADF to operate as a facility of the NASD until entered into the ECN by communicating * * * permits registered market makers NASD has the means to fulfill its these quotes to an SRO that was willing and registered ECNs to display their regulatory obligations.’’ 128 In the to display them in the consolidated best-priced quotes or customer limit Exchange Application Order, the quote system. The Commission said that orders * * * through the NASD. ADF Commission clearly articulates the if no SRO was willing to accept these market participants are required to statutory and regulatory obligations the quotes, it would take steps to ensure provide other ADF market participants NASD must be able to satisfy prior to that these ECN quotes were included in with direct electronic access to their Nasdaq commences operation as a 119 quote * * *. The ADF also serves as a the consolidated quote by an SRO. national securities exchange.129 In trade reporting and trade comparison Nasdaq, as the competing market pertinent part, the NASD must represent facility. The ADF will therefore allow maker quotation system for non- to the Commission that control of market participants to satisfy their order exchange listed stocks operated on Nasdaq through the Preferred D Share is display and execution access obligations behalf of the NASD, chose at that time no longer necessary because the NASD under the Order Handling Rules and to accept ECN quotes in its system. can fulfill through means other than Regulation ATS.’’125 The D.C. Circuit Nasdaq accommodated the ECN order Nasdaq systems or facilities its Court of Appeals later stated that the delivery preferences at their own obligations with respect to CTA Plan NASD ADF is an alternative display displayed size even though market securities under Section 15A(b)(11) of facility that was created to ‘‘provide an makers in Nasdaq were required (against the Act, Rules 602 and 603 of alternative outlet in which market their wishes) to accept automatic Regulation NMS, and the national participants that did not wish to use execution at an NASD-imposed 1,000- market system plans, i.e., the CTA Plan, 120 SuperMontage could fulfill their order share automatic execution size. CQ Plan, Nasdaq UTP Plan, the ITS display and trading reporting Nasdaq subsequently eliminated the Plan, and the Order Execution Quality obligations under SEC regulations.’’ 126 required 1,000-share automatic Disclosure Plan, in which the NASD Subsequently, the NASD and Nasdaq execution size, but retained automatic will participate.130 121 chose to sunder their relationship, and execution for market makers. In SR– Thus, while Citigroup cites to the Nasdaq registered as a separate national 127 comparative various operational 116 securities exchange. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. The NASD differences of the NASD ADF versus the 45156 (December 14, 2001), 67 FR 388 (January 3, Nasdaq Market Center from a business 2002). 122 See SuperMontage Order, supra note 17. 117 17 CFR 242.601–02. 123 See Order Handling Rules, supra note 118 and perspective, the only regulatory 118 Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 37619A Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40760 requirement referenced in its letter is (September 6, 1996), 61 FR 48290 (‘‘Order Handling (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70844 (December 22, Rules’’). 1998) (‘‘Regulation ATS’’). 128 See Exchange Application Order at 3564. 119 Id. 124 SuperMontage Order at 8024. 129 See Exchange Application Order at 3562–64, 120 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 125 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 3566. The Commission recently modified the 42344 (January 14, 2000), 65 FR 3987 (January 25, 46429 (August 29, 2002), 67 FR 56862. requirements for Nasdaq’s operation as an 2000) (NASD–99–11). 126 Domestic Securities, Inc. v. Securities and exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 121 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. Exchange Commission, 333 F.3d 239, 248–249 (D.C. 54085 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR 38910 (July 10, 2006). 45998 (May 29, 2002), 67 FR 39759 (June 10, 2002) Cir. 2003). 130 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. (NASD–2001–66). 127 See supra note 5. 54085 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR 38910 (July 10, 2006).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41301

the ability of the NASD to accept quotes NSX, in response to Nasdaq Response by providing cheaper and faster access in non-Nasdaq listed securities, which Letter IV,133 stated that it intended to to valuable liquidity. However, the is a pre-condition to the separation of undertake a major trading system Commission does not believe that the Nasdaq from NASD and Nasdaq’s initiative to prepare itself for the market elimination of Nasdaq’s order delivery Exchange operation that must be structure changes and growth in volume functionality must or should necessarily achieved by virtue of the NASD’s plan anticipated with the implementation of have a deleterious impact on ECNs or participation. Regulation NMS.134 This NSX statement the national market system as a whole. The Commission recognizes that is in accord with the Commission’s b. Nasdaq’s Position as SRO. Some of participation in the NASD ADF may belief that efforts to improve the the commenters contended that this require additional connectivity and national market system via proposal is an attempt by Nasdaq to use related development costs for certain technological innovations is, and will its position as an SRO and as a for-profit market participants. Again, the notion continue to be, a market-wide entity to ‘‘crush’’ its ECN that innovation or change to a market’s phenomenon that will ultimately ensure competition.136 Specifically, some structure or manner of operation will that ECNs have a variety of viable commenters aver that Nasdaq’s require the use of technological or options not only from a regulatory acquisitions of the Brut and INET ECNs developmental resources is neither perspective, but from an operational and set this strategy in motion and this novel nor unforeseen. In fact, in business perspective as well. proposal would enable Nasdaq to approving Rule 610 of Regulation NMS Accordingly, the Commission ‘‘perfect its monopoly.’’ Bloomberg, in (i.e., the Access Rule) the Commission continues to encourage the innovation its second comment letter, asserted that extensively discussed the connectivity of the NASD ADF, SRO facilities, ECNs, Nasdaq seeks to eliminate the order requirements for participants in the and market participants in general that delivery functionality for independent NASD ADF. The Regulation NMS Order would enhance participation and ECNs ‘‘while preserving it for Nasdaq’s reads, in pertinent part,131 interaction between markets and order own ECN facilities,’’ namely Brut and The NASD is not * * * statutorily required flow within the national market system. INET, thereby giving its own ECNs a to provide an order execution functionality Nonetheless, the Commission also competitive advantage.137 However, the in the ADF. As a national securities believes that Nasdaq must have the Commission notes that under this association, the NASD is subject to different flexibility to rework its structure to proposal Nasdaq would integrate the regulatory requirements than a national permit appropriate responses to the securities exchange * * *.The Exchange Act Brut and INET execution systems with rapidly changing marketplace. Congress the Nasdaq Market Center, utilizing the does not expressly require an association to noted that the Commission should seek INET platform; only Brut’s broker-dealer establish a facility for executing orders to ‘‘enhance competition and to allow against the quotations of its members, routing functionality would continue economic forces, interacting with a fair although it could choose to do so. The upon the unification of the three trading regulatory field, to arrive at appropriate Commission believes that market makers and platforms. Thus, this proposal could not variation in practices and services.’’ 135 ECNs should continue to have the option of advantage Nasdaq-affiliated ECNs over In the Commission’s view, as an operating in the OTC market, rather than on other ECNs because Nasdaq-affiliated an exchange or The NASDAQ Market Center. exchange in competition with other ECNs would not exist. In addition, the As noted in the Commission’s order markets, Nasdaq has the right to seek a Commission notes that Nasdaq’s approving Nasdaq’s SuperMontage trading more efficient model of doing business. acquisitions of Brut and INET were facility, this ability to operate in the ADF is While ECNs may desire certain an important competitive alternative to functionality accommodating their reviewed and approved by the Nasdaq or exchange affiliation * * *. current mode of participating in the Commission as positive developments in the ever-changing, dynamic market The Commission further stated that: Nasdaq market, Nasdaq, like other 138 exchanges and market participants, environment. [R]ule 610(b)(1) requires all trading centers The Commission agrees with Nasdaq’s that choose to display quotations in an SRO must be permitted to innovate and display-only quotation facility to provide a adjust to the dynamic nature of today’s statement that there is no explicit level and cost of access to such quotations securities industry, within the requirement in the Act for a national that is substantially equivalent to the level requirements of the Act. securities exchange to offer order and cost of access to quotations displayed by The Commission recognizes that delivery participation in their execution SRO trading facilities. Rule 610(b) therefore ECNs as a group have been among the systems.139 The Commission does not may cause trading centers [e.g., ECNs] that most innovative market participants in believe that Nasdaq must continue to display quotations in the ADF to incur recent years, introducing a number of offer order delivery functionality to additional costs to enhance the level of novel trading tools and strategies. In meet its obligations in the Act and the access to their quotations and to lower the rules and regulations thereunder. cost of connectivity for market participants addition, ECNs have benefited investors seeking to access their quotations. Although the order delivery primarily to a lack of system capacity. See functionality has been a part of Nasdaq’s Thus, the Commission has Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 2–3. trading platform, the Commission does contemplated the costs related to 133 See supra note 82. not believe Nasdaq is required to retain linking to and operating in the NASD 134 Specifically, NSX stated that it intends to the functionality going forward, ADF and who may appropriately bear implement a new state-of-the-art trading system, ‘‘NSX Blade,’’ that would increase its systems particularly given the legitimate such costs. capacity ten-fold and ‘‘establish a new standard for regulatory reasons for its The Commission notes that, in speed in the securities industry.’’ NSX stated that discontinuation provided by Nasdaq addition to the ADF, other SROs such as broker-dealers would be able to connect to its system ‘‘through industry-standard FIX protocol or NSX may eventually offer ECNs an 136 See, e.g., Track Comment Letter I at 1; and 132 connect through any of the major extranets.’’ Thus, order delivery quote functionality. NSX has represented that it intends to address the Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 1, 5, 8. capacity and linkage concerns which Bloomberg 137 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 1. 131 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. believes make NSX an inadequate venue alternative 138 See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37542 (June 29, to the Nasdaq Market Center. See NSX Comment 51326 (March 7, 2005), 70 FR 12521 (March 14, 2005). Letter at 2. 2005) and 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 132 Bloomberg also questioned the viability of 135 See S. Rep. No. 94–75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (December 13, 2005). NSX as a potential venue alternative to Nasdaq due 7 (1975) at 8. 139 Nasdaq Response Letter at 2.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41302 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

including that the functionality could friendly’’ measures and found them to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the pose significant risks and costs. be consistent with the Act, these same Commission clearly enunciated a view In addition, Nasdaq endured provisions were never imposed upon that automated markets and automated significant cost in 2005 to acquire Nasdaq by the Commission or deemed quotes (i.e., automatic execution INET 140 and, through the Single Book to be requirements under the Act. functionality), combined with access to Proposal, Nasdaq seeks to use the INET During its development as a quote such markets and quotes was an platform as the basis for its Integrated facility of the NASD, Nasdaq had taken important attribute in a national market System going forward in order to a series of actions to accommodate ECN system.144 provide a faster and more efficient participation and their particularized To this end, Rule 611 of Regulation system with greater capacity. As business model. In certain respects, NMS only protects from trade-throughs competition increases both in the ECNs have enjoyed a privileged status automated quotations of automated United States and globally, and with the in the Nasdaq market compared to markets. An automated quotation is a Commission’s approval of Regulation agency brokers and market maker quotation that, among other things, is NMS, nearly all national securities participants by virtue of their ability to, displayed and is immediately accessible exchanges are in the process of amongst other things, accept order through automatic execution, and that transforming their systems to better delivery instead of automatic execution. immediately and automatically cancels compete. Through implementation of its The Commission does not believe that, any unexecuted portion of an order Single Book Proposal, Nasdaq seeks to in removing the order delivery marked as immediate-or-cancel without maximize the advantages of the INET functionality, the instant proposal routing the order elsewhere.145 In trading platform—faster executions and would result in unfair discrimination Question 5 of the Division’s NMS FAQs, increased certainty. between customers, issuers, brokers, or the Division said that an SRO trading As Nasdaq prepares to commence dealers. Because Nasdaq has previously facility that displays the quotations of operations as a national securities accommodated ECNs, changing features order delivery ECNs can meet the exchange, the Commission believes that such as the order delivery function will requirements of the definition of an providing order delivery functionality is necessarily impact ECNs automated quotation only if such not required of Nasdaq, as with any disproportionately. However, the quotations are closely integrated within other exchange. If another exchange Commission disagrees with the the SRO trading facility.146 In its deems such functionality to be suggestion that it logically follows that comment letter, Bloomberg asserted that advantageous for its operation as an such disproportionate impact is per se Nasdaq’s interpretation of the response exchange, it may choose to add it. equivalent to unfair discrimination to Question 5 of the Division’s NMS Notwithstanding the valuable under the Act. In this case, the FAQs was wrong, in that the Division contributions that ECNs bring to the Commission believes the proposed rule did ‘‘not authorize Nasdaq to drop order national market system in terms of change is consistent with the Act and it delivery without considering the factors liquidity and innovation, the does not unfairly discriminate between the Division cited.’’ 147 The Commission Commission does not believe that the ECNs and other Nasdaq market believes that Bloomberg has Act requires the Nasdaq exchange to participants. Nasdaq is eliminating a misinterpreted the Division’s response continue to separately provide disparate treatment between ECNs and to Question 5. The response does not functionality to accommodate the the other Nasdaq market participants by address an exchange dropping its order particularized business choices of the requiring that all participants accept delivery functionality. Instead, the ECN participants. automatic execution to increase the response relates to whether a market 2. Claims of Unfair Discrimination efficiency and competitiveness of the supporting order delivery could be Nasdaq exchange. Some of the commenters assert that considered ‘‘automated,’’ and if its the elimination of the order delivery 3. Automatic Execution Function quote could be ‘‘protected’’ under functionality in the proposed rule The Commission notes that in Regulation NMS. The Division’s answer change, as amended, is inconsistent numerous instances it has approved is intended to clarify how a market with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because automatic execution within the national would comply with Regulation NMS it would discriminate unfairly against market system in general, and Nasdaq in and does not control whether Nasdaq independent ECNs vis-a`-vis all other particular. For instance, in the keeps or discards its order delivery Nasdaq members and it would not SuperMontage Order, the Commission functionality. promote a free and open market and a affirmed that automatic execution is a national market system.141 The reasonable way for Nasdaq to improve 144 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. Commission disagrees. ECNs have been market efficiency and provide many 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005). the only Nasdaq participants with the 145 Rule 600(b)(3) of Regulation NMS defines an benefits to a marketplace, particularly automated quotation to mean a ‘‘quotation option to use the Nasdaq order delivery speed and certainty of executions.142 displayed by a trading center that: (i) Permits an service; all other Nasdaq market The SuperMontage Order said that incoming order to be marked as immediate-or- participants, i.e., market makers, order automatic execution also would cancel; (ii) immediately and automatically executes entry firms, and UTP Exchanges, are an order marked as immediate-or-cancel against the promote investor confidence by displayed quotation up to its full size; (iii) currently required to accept automatic increasing the likelihood that orders of immediately and automatically cancels any executions. Nasdaq has also maintained moderate size from large and small unexecuted portion of an order marked as other features of its market exclusively investors alike will be filled almost immediate-or-cancel without routing the order for the benefit of ECNs (e.g., the ability elsewhere; (iv) immediately and automatically instantaneously, improve the accuracy transmits a response to the sender of an order to charge quote access fees.) While the of Nasdaq’s pricing systems, promote marked as immediate-or-cancel indicating the Commission approved these ‘‘ECN- the timeliness of trade reporting, and action taken with respect to such order; and (v) help alleviate locked and crossed immediately and automatically displays 140 information that updates the displayed quotation to In its third comment response letter, Nasdaq 143 stated that it spent close to $1 billion in 2005 to markets. Most recently, in approving reflect any change to its material terms. 17 CFR acquire INET from Reuters. Nasdaq Response Letter 242.600(b)(3). III at 3. 142 SuperMontage Order at 8049. 146 NMS FAQs at Question 5. 141 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 10. 143 SuperMontage Order at 8049–50. 147 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 7.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41303

4. Implementation Date The Commission notes that Nasdaq, liquidity to NSX.159 In addition, in independent of its exchange application response to comments for a transitional In Bloomberg Comment Letter III, and as a NASD subsidiary at the time, phase-in period,160 Nasdaq has Bloomberg stated that it and other order had already proposed to integrate its proposed to commence its phased-in delivery ECNs had been led by Nasdaq three facilities by September 30, 2006 in implementation of the Integrated to believe that the Nasdaq Market its filing to establish the rules governing System based on automatic executions Center’s order delivery functionality the operation of its INET System.156 In on August 28, 2006; 161 which is almost would be available until at least fall of the INET Order the Commission seven months after the proposal was 2006 at the earliest, if not on an ongoing approved Nasdaq’s proposed filed, and nearly six months since basis.148 Bloomberg requested that, commitment to integrate as of Bloomberg’s initial comment letter. The should the Commission decide to September 30, 2006; 157 however, that Commission believes that order delivery approve the Single Book Proposal, the date was not mandated by the ECNs have had sufficient time to make Commission delay the effective date of Commission. In addition, the plain alternate plans for quoting in the ADF the rules to provide ECNs an language of the INET Order, NASD Rule or another SRO. opportunity to migrate to another 162 49545(b)(2), and the Exchange Section 19(b)(1) of the Act requires venue.149 The USCC also encouraged Application Order makes clear that a SRO to the file with the Commission the Commission to, as a matter of good September 30, 2006 was the latest date ‘‘any proposed rule change in, addition process, ‘‘consider the need for that Nasdaq, pursuant to its to, or deletion from the rules of such appropriate transition periods’’ should commitment, could integrate its trading self-regulatory organization * * * the proposed rule change be adopted.150 facilities. Neither the INET Order nor accompanied by a concise general Similarly, Track requested a phased-in the Exchange Application Order statement of the basis and purpose of approach to the rules should they be required that integration be delayed such proposed rule change. Such adopted.151 In response to commenter until September 30, 2006, or prohibited proposed rule change must be filed in concerns and in order to provide ECNs Nasdaq integrating its systems at an accordance with the requirements of with adequate time to program their 163 earlier date. Rule 19b–4 under the Act. The systems for participation in Nasdaq or Commission believes that Nasdaq has 152 The Commission believes that astute migration to another venue, Nasdaq market participants, such as Bloomberg, filed the Single Book Proposal in has agreed to delay its implementation could have reasonably anticipated the accordance with the requirements of the and roll-out of the Single Book Proposal Act and its rules and regulations 153 strong possibility of Nasdaq operating until August 28, 2006. on an automatic-execution only basis thereunder. In the Commission’s approval of prior to September 30, 2006, based on: The Commission believes that Nasdaq Nasdaq’s exchange application in (1) Nasdaq’s anticipated operation as an has met all of the procedural January 2006, the Commission exchange with executions based on requirements for the instant proposed emphasized that Nasdaq’s approval was price-time priority for all of Nasdaq’s rule change and provided the public in based on a set of rules with price/time order flow, (2) Nasdaq’s acquisition of general and interested parties in 154 priority. In addition, the Commission Brut and INET, both of which are particular with adequate notice and noted in the Exchange Application automatic-execution facilities, and (3) opportunity to comment under the Act. Order that the two ECNs that Nasdaq Regulation NMS where the Commission The Commission believes that the had recently acquired—Brut and INET— clearly enunciated a view that Integrated System will promote both applied rules that required their automated markets and automated competition and bring investors and the national market system benefits through orders to be executed in price/time quotes (i.e., automatic execution 155 the efficiencies and transparencies priority. As discussed above, the functionality), combined with access to brought about through a single liquidity Single Book concept of integrating the such markets and quotes was an pool with price/time priority. The three Nasdaq Facilities was discussed important attribute in a national market Commission believes that, given the by the Commission in the Exchange system. Application Order and the Commission In addition, formal notice of Nasdaq’s notice provided by Nasdaq’s filings, it is believed that such an integration would intention to create an Integrated System consistent with the Act for Nasdaq to implement the Integrated System as be beneficial, though the Commission based on automatic executions prior to proposed. permitted the three Nasdaq Facilities to September 30, 2006 was clearly given operate separately for a temporary on February 7, 2006, the day Nasdaq B. Operation as a National Securities period, until September 30, 2006, filed the Single Book Proposal with the Exchange because the Brut and INET facilities had Commission. At that time, Nasdaq only been recently acquired by Nasdaq. The Commission notes that, under the proposed to commence operation of the Single Book Proposal, Nasdaq’s trading Integrated System by as early as May platform would have an integrated 148 Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 8–11. 2006. Bloomberg submitted an initial quote/order book operated in 149 Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 11; see also comment letter opposing the proposed accordance with a unified price/time Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 11. rule change dated March 6, 2006, which 150 See USCC Comment Letter at 1–2. priority execution algorithm. In the 151 Track Comment Letter I at 2. suggested that it would take three to six Exchange Application Order, the 152 See Bloomberg Comment Letter II at 11; months to complete the systems work Commission acknowledged that, Bloomberg Comment Letter III at 11; USCC required to adapt to a new venue.158 because of the recent nature of Nasdaq’s Comment Letter at 1–2; and Track Comment Letter The Commission understands that Brut and INET acquisitions and because I at 2. BATS has already made and 153 See Amendment No. 3. implemented its plans to migrate its 159 154 Exchange Application Order at 3558–59. See Nasdaq Response Letter II. 160 155 Exchange Application Order at 3558, note 137. See Track Comment Letter I at 2; USCC See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 156 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. Comment Letter at 1–2; and Bloomberg Comment 52902 (December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December 52723 (November 2, 2005), 70 FR 67513 (November Letter IV at 1. 13, 2005) (‘‘INET Order’’) and 51326 (March 7, 7, 2005)(’’INET Notice’’). 161 See Amendment No. 3. 2005), 70 FR 12521 (March 14, 2005) (‘‘Brut 157 See INET Order at 73811. 162 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Order’’). 158 Bloomberg Comment Letter I at 11. 163 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

of the reliance by participants on the Book Processing 168 and Order efficiency, competition, and capital continued availability of those ATSs, it Routing 169 rules to comply with the formation.172 As discussed in more was in the public interest for Brut and requirements of Regulation NMS. These detail above, the Commission has INET to be available for a limited period proposed rules include permitting users carefully considered whether the while Nasdaq worked to integrate them to designate orders meeting the proposal will promote efficiency, with its NMC Facility.164 The requirements of Rule 600(b)(30) of competition and capital formation and Commission stated that ‘‘it is beneficial Regulation NMS 170 as intermarket has concluded that the Single Book for orders in the same securities sweep orders, which would allow Proposal should encourage competition directed to an exchange to interact with orders so designated to be automatically and should not impede the development each other’’ and that ‘‘[s]uch interaction matched and executed without of other trading systems or market promotes efficient exchange trading and reference to protected quotations at innovation. The Commission believes protects investors by assuring that other trading centers. that the Single Book Proposal is an orders are executed pursuant to a single In addition, Nasdaq has proposed to appropriate undertaking by Nasdaq to set of priority rules that are consistently implement routing options that its enhance the quality of its market by and fairly applied.’’ 165 The Commission believes are consistent with Rules 610 providing more information to permitted the Exchange to operate three and 611 of Regulation NMS. Nasdaq investors, promoting greater efficiency separate trading platforms—namely the also proposed rules intended to ensure in executions, and increasing overall NMC Facility, Brut Facility, and INET its compliance with Rule 612 of market transparency. While the Single Facility—for a temporary period prior to Regulation NMS (i.e., accepting sub- Book Proposal should provide a central September 30, 2006. This proposed rule penny prices in $0.0001 increments for means for accessing liquidity in Nasdaq change, as amended, would enable securities priced less than $1.00 a share and non-Nasdaq stocks, it does not Nasdaq to satisfy its Commission- and rejecting orders in sub-penny represent an exclusive means, nor does approved commitment to integrate its increments for securities priced $1.00 or it prevent broker-dealers from seeking three trading facilities prior to more per share).171 The Commission alternative order routing and execution September 30, 2006. also notes that proposed Nasdaq Rule services. In addition, the Commission In addition, Nasdaq’s Single Book 4756(c)(4) addresses situations where believes that the proposal should Proposal will allow the Exchange to Nasdaq has reason to believe it is not promote competition and capital program its system to operate in capable of displaying automated formation by providing its market compliance with the Exchange quotations, including adopting policies participants with several quote and Application Order in additional ways. and procedures for communicating to order management options (e.g., For example, the Integrated System both its members and other trading Discretionary Orders, Reserve Orders, would not accept reports of transactions centers about such a situation, as well Pegged Orders, and Minimum Quantity occurring outside the Integrated System, as receiving and responding to notices Order), including order types which would interact with the network of other trading centers electing the will enable market participants to processors for the various national ‘‘self-help’’ exception under Rule operate in the post-Regulation NMS market system plans in compliance with 611(b)(1) of Regulation NMS. trading environment, such as Commission rules governing exchanges, Intermarket Sweep Orders, Price to and would fulfill Nasdaq’s new role as D. Other Rules Comply Orders, and Price to Comply an exchange in the national market The proposed rule change, as Post Orders. system plans, including the national amended, would merge five current sets F. Accelerated Approval of Amendment market system plan governing the of rules (the 4600, 4700, 4900, 4950, and Nos. 2 and 3 Intermarket Trading System (‘‘ITS 5200 Series) into two (the 4600 and As set forth below, the Commission Plan’’). In addition, under the Single 4750 Series), with the proposed 4600 finds good cause to approve Book Proposal, Nasdaq itself (rather Series governing System participants Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the than its individual members) would be and the proposed 4750 Series governing proposed rule change, as amended, bound by the obligations of the ITS the operation of the Integrated System. prior to the thirtieth day after the Plan, maintain a single two-sided In addition to reorganizing the rule set, amendments are published for comment quotation, and be responsible for trade- and making changes to the Exchange’s in the Federal Register pursuant to through compliance. The Commission rules for exchange and Regulation NMS notes that the proposed rules change, as Section 19(b)(2) of the Act. readiness, the proposed rule change, as In Amendment No. 2, Nasdaq amended, cannot be operational until amended, addresses, among other modifies the proposed rule language to Nasdaq has satisfied all the conditions things, openings and closings, the order reflect the Commission’s extension of set forth by the Commission in the display/matching system, order types, certain compliance dates relating to Exchange Application Order.166 time in force designations, anonymity, Regulation NMS. Specifically, Nasdaq is C. Regulation NMS routing, book processing, adjustment of modifying proposed rules to reflect that open orders, and Nasdaq’s proposed such rules would not become effective The Commission believes that the phase-in plan for the proposed rules. proposed rule change should allow until the applicable Regulation NMS Nasdaq to comply with the E. Impact on Efficiency, Competition, implementation date of May 21, 2007. requirements of Regulation NMS.167 In and Capital Formation Such rules include Rule 4613(e) (pertaining to locked and crossed proposed Nasdaq Rule 4613(e), Nasdaq Section 3(f) of the Act requires that markets), Rule 4751(f) (pertaining to proposes to adopt a rule with regard to the Commission consider whether order types), and Rule 4755 (pertaining locked and crossed markets. The Nasdaq’s proposal will promote Exchange has also designed its proposed to intermarket sweep orders). The Commission finds good cause to 168 See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4757. 164 Id at 3559. 169 See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4758. accelerate approval of these changes 165 Id. 170 17 CFR 242.600(b)(30). prior to the thirtieth day after 166 Exchange Application Order at 3566. 171 Single Book Proposal at 19592. See also 167 See supra note 6. proposed Nasdaq Rule 4613(a)(1)(B). 172 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41305

publication in the Federal Register. The months from the original filing date of filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed Commission believes this is a this proposed rule change. The rule change.3 The Commission is reasonable approach in light of the Commission also notes that, publishing this notice to solicit extension of Regulation NMS notwithstanding Nasdaq’s proposed comments on the proposed rule change, compliance dates and should help to August 28, 2006 implementation date, as amended, from interested persons. ensure that the appropriate Nasdaq rules the proposed rules change, as amended, are in place at the time that Regulation cannot be operational until Nasdaq has I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s NMS compliance is required. satisfied all the conditions set forth by Statement of the Terms of Substance of In Amendment No. 2, Nasdaq also is the Commission in the Exchange the Proposed Rule Change making several technical corrections to 174 Application Order. The Commission The Exchange proposes to amend the the proposed rule change, for example, believes that August 28, 2006 should Trade Related Charges section of the eliminating typographical and provide market participants with underlining errors. These changes are Schedule of Fees and Charges adequate time to prepare for the (‘‘Schedule’’). The text of the proposed non-substantive and technical in nature Implemented System, and would also and are necessary to clarify the fee schedule is available on the NYSE permit Nasdaq to meet its commitment Arca’s Web site http:// proposal. The Commission finds good to fully integrate its three trading cause to accelerate approval of these www.archipelago.com, at the NYSE facilities on or before September 30, Arca’s Office of the Secretary, and at the changes prior to the thirtieth day after 2006. publication in the Federal Register Commission’s Public Reference Room. VII. Conclusion because they better clarify Nasdaq’s II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s rules, which should assist members’ It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Statement of the Purpose of, and ability to comply with their Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,175 that the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule requirements, and assist investors in proposed rule change (File No. SR– Change understanding their application and NASDAQ–2006–001), as amended by scope. Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3, be, and In its filing with the Commission, the In Amendment No. 3, in response to hereby is, approved. Exchange included statements the comments filed by the U.S. Chamber By the Commission. concerning the purpose of, and basis for, of Commerce, Bloomberg, and others, the proposed rule change and discussed Nancy M. Morris, Nasdaq proposes to commence a any comments it received on the phased-in implementation of the Secretary. proposed rule change, as amended. The Integrated System on August 28, [FR Doc. 06–6366 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] text of these statements may be 2006.173 In addition, Amendment No. 3 BILLING CODE 8010–01–P examined at the places specified in Item describes Nasdaq’s plan to test IV below. The NYSE Arca has prepared securities on the System during July and summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, early August 2006 and phase-in the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE and C below, of the most significant operation of the Integrated System with COMMISSION aspects of such statements. an initial three-week transition period [Release No. 34–54130; File No. SR– A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s for Nasdaq-listed stocks, followed by NYSEArca–2006–20] non-Nasdaq-listed stocks. Statement of the Purpose of, and The Commission finds good cause to Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule accelerate approval of this change prior Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Change to the thirtieth day after publication in Proposed Rule Change Relating to 1. Purpose the Federal Register. The Commission Schedule of Fees and Charges finds that the change in the proposed The purpose of the proposed rule implementation of the Integrated July 11, 2006. change, as amended, is to amend the System to a later date than that Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Trade Related Charges section of the originally proposed and published for Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Schedule. NYSE Arca proposes to 1 2 comment and later than that proposed (‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, combine two existing fees associated by Amendment No. 2, as well as the notice is hereby given that on May 17, with Linkage Orders.4 The Exchange allowance of a testing period and 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘NYSE Arca’’ or also proposes to add additional phased-in period, would provide a ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities language to footnotes 4 and 5 of the longer transition period for Nasdaq and Exchange Commission Trade Related Charges section of the market participants and other (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule Schedule in order to explain that the participants in the national market change as described in Items I, II, and existing Broker Dealer Surcharge also system. The delay until August 28, 2006 III below, which Items have been applies to Linkage Orders. prepared by the Exchange. On May 26, and the phase-in period should help to Presently orders received via the ensure that there is an orderly transition 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On Linkage, other than Satisfaction Orders, to the Integrated System and provide are assessed a $0.21 transaction fee and Nasdaq’s market participants, including June 30, 2006, the Exchange filed many of the commenters, opportunity to Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change. On July 7, 2006, the Exchange 3 See Form 19b–4 dated July 7, 2006 decide whether to continue (‘‘Amendment No. 3’’). Amendment No. 3 replaced participating in Nasdaq, or to elect to the original filing and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 in move their business elsewhere. The 174 Exchange Application Order at 3566. The their entirety. Commission recently modified the requirements for Commission notes that August 28, 2006 4 Linkage Orders are orders that are routed Nasdaq’s operation as an exchange. See Securities through the Intermarket Linkage System represents a period of nearly seven Exchange Act Release No. 54085 (June 30, 2006), 71 (‘‘Linkage’’) as permitted under the Plan for the FR 38910 (July 10, 2006). Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket 173 The Commission notes that Amendment No. 3 175 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Option Linkage. See Securities Exchange Act replaces the August 14, 2006 implementation date 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR 48023 that Nasdaq had proposed in Amendment No. 2. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. (August 4, 2000).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

a $0.05 comparison fee.5 Since all B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s submission, all subsequent applicable Linkage Orders are charged Statement on Burden on Competition amendments, all written statements both fees in all instances, to simplify the The Exchange does not believe that with respect to the proposed rule Schedule, the Exchange is proposing the proposed rule change will impose change that are filed with the combining the fees into one transaction any burden on competition that is not Commission, and all written fee of $0.26. While the published rate necessary or appropriate in furtherance communications relating to the schedule will appear different than it of the purposes of the Act. proposed rule change between the presently does, this proposed change Commission and any person, other than does not affect the total fee the C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s those that may be withheld from the Exchange assesses for Linkage Statement on Comments on the public in accordance with the transactions. Changes made pursuant to Proposed Rule Change Received From provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be the combining of the transaction fee and Members, Participants, or Others available for inspection and copying in the comparison fee makes no Written comments on the proposed the Commission’s Public Reference substantive change to the Linkage Fee rule change were neither solicited nor Room. Copies of such filing also will be Pilot Program. This proposed change received. available for inspection and copying at serves only to simplify of the Schedule. the principal offices of the Exchange. III. Date of Effectiveness of the All comments received will be posted NYSE Arca presently assesses a $0.25 Proposed Rule Change and Timing for without change; the Commission does per contract fee on Broker Dealer (‘‘BD’’) Commission Action not edit personal identifying transactions occurring when BD orders Within 35 days of the date of information from submissions. You are entered and executed electronically. publication of this notice in the Federal should submit only information that Under the Linkage Fee Pilot Program, Register or within such longer period (i) you wish to make available publicly. All executions on NYSE Arca resulting from as the Commission may designate up to submissions should refer to File Linkage Orders are subject to the same 90 days of such date if it finds such Number SR–NYSEArca–2006–20 and billing treatment as other BD longer period to be appropriate and 6 should be submitted on or before executions. Subsequently, Linkage publishes its reasons for so finding or August 10, 2006. Orders that are entered and executed (ii) as to which the self-regulatory For the Commission, by the Division of electronically are assessed the $0.25 BD organization consents, the Commission Surcharge per contract on those Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated will: authority.10 executions.7 NYSE Arca proposes to add (A) By order approve such proposed J. Lynn Taylor, a reference to the BD Surcharge in the rule change, or existing footnote associated with (B) Institute proceedings to determine Assistant Secretary. Linkage Fees. The Exchange also whether the proposed rule change [FR Doc. E6–11493 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] proposes to add similar language to the should be disapproved. BILLING CODE 8010–01–P footnote associated with the BD Surcharge in order to clarify that the IV. Solicitation of Comments surcharge will apply to Linkage Orders. Interested persons are invited to DEPARTMENT OF STATE The additional language in the footnotes submit written data, views, and associated with the BD Surcharge and arguments concerning the foregoing, [Delegation of Authority 294] Linkage Fees will serve to explain all including whether the proposed rule costs that are associated with sending change is consistent with the Act. Delegation by the Secretary of State to and executing Linkage Orders on NYSE Comments may be submitted by any of the Under Secretary for Political Affairs Arca. the following methods: of Authorities Normally Vested in the Deputy Secretary 2. Statutory Basis Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s Internet By virtue of the authority vested in The Exchange believes that the comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ me as Secretary of State, including proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) rules/sro.shtml); or Section l of the State Department Basic of the Act,8 in general, and furthers the • Send an e-mail to rule- Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,9 [email protected]. Please include File 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Under in particular, in that it provides for the Number SR–NYSEArca–2006–20 on the Secretary for Political Affairs, to the equitable allocation of dues, fees and subject line. extent authorized by law, all authorities other charges among its members and and functions vested in the Deputy other persons using its facilities for the Paper Comments Secretary of State, including all purpose of executing Linkage Orders • Send paper comments in triplicate authorities and functions vested in the that are routed to the Exchange from to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Secretary of State or the head of agency other market centers. Securities and Exchange Commission, that have been or may be delegated or Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., re-delegated to the Deputy Secretary. 5 These fees are applicable through an Exchange Washington, DC 20549–1090. Any authority or function covered by Pilot Program due to expire on July 31, 2006. The All submissions should refer to File this delegation of authority may also be Exchange intends to file for a one-year extension of exercised by the Secretary of State. the Pilot Program. Number SR–NYSEArca–2006–20. This 6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47786 file number should be included on the Any act, executive order, regulation, (May 2, 2003), 68 FR 24779 (May 8, 2003) (order subject line if e-mail is used. To help the or procedure subject to, or affected by, approving Linkage Fee Pilot Program). Commission process and review your this delegation of authority shall be 7 NYSE Arca acknowledges that it is in comments more efficiently, please use deemed to be such act, executive order, discussions with the Commission staff concerning regulation, or procedure as amended the historical treatment of the BD Surcharge on only one method. The Commission will Linkage Orders. post all comments on the Commission’s from time to time. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 10 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41307

This delegation of authority shall DATES: Comments must be received on Thence N 54°14′07″ W a distance of enter into force on July 8, 2006 and shall or before August 21, 2006. 78.50 feet to an iron pin set. ° ′ ″ expire upon the appointment and entry FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thence N 36 20 31 E a distance of upon duty of a new Deputy Secretary. 409.01 feet to an iron pin set. Melanie Laud, Program Manager, 11677 ° ′ ″ All existing delegations of authority South Wayne Road, Suite 107, Romulus, Thence S 55 02 55 E a distance of now in effect, including any re- 78.52 feet to an iron pin set. Michigan 48174. Telephone Number ° ′ ″ delegation of authority by the Deputy (734) 229–2929/FAX Number (734) 229– Thence S 36 20 31 W a distance of Secretary, shall remain in effect. 2950. Documents reflecting this FAA 410.12 feet to the beginning and This delegation of authority shall be action may be reviewed at this same containing 0.738 acres more or less. published in the Federal Register. location or at Cambridge Municipal Subject to all easements or leases of Airport, Cambridge, Ohio. public record. Bearings are magnetic Condoleezza Rice, and are for angle purpose only. Iron SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Following Secretary of State, Department of State. pins set are 5⁄8 inch rebar 30 inches long [FR Doc. E6–11557 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] is a legal description of the property capped SPILKER LS–5862. located in Cambridge, Guernsey County, BILLING CODE 4710–08–P Ohio, and described as follows: Situated Dated: Issued in Romulus, Michigan on in Jackson Township, Guernsey County, June 22, 2006. Ohio and being 4.105 acres more or less Irene R. Porter, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION in Military Lot #29, Township #1 North, Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, Range #3 West in the United States FAA, Great Lakes Region. Federal Aviation Administration Military Lands Survey and being more [FR Doc. 06–6379 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Public Notice for Waiver of particularly described as follows: BILLING CODE 4910–13–M Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance, Commencing at an iron pin found at the Northwest corner of Military Lot #29, Cambridge Municipal Airport, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Cambridge, OH Thence with the west line of Military Lot #29 S 05°15′28″ W a distance of Federal Aviation Administration AGENCY: Federal Aviation 514.25 feet to an iron pin found, the Administration, DOT. BEGINNING. Notice of Passenger Facility Charge ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with Thence with the lands of now or (PFC) Approvals and Disapprovals respect to land. formerly Anne Stillion as found in Official Record Book 43 Page 1075 the AGENCY: Federal Aviation SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation following two (2) calls: 1. N 69°10′42″ Administration (FAA), DOT. Administration (FAA) is considering a E a distance of 185.03 feet to an iron pin ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC proposal to change a portion of the found. 2. N 04°09′20″ E a distance of Approvals and Disapprovals. In June airport from aeronautical use to non- 164.76 feet to a P.K. Nail found. 2006, there were six applications aeronautical use and to authorize the Thence with the lands of now or approved. This notice also includes release 4.105 acres of vacant airport formerly Dunning Investment Company, information on two applications, property for an exchange of property LTD as found in Official Record Book approved in May 2006, inadvertently between the Cambridge Area Regional 184 Page 675 the following two (2) calls: left off the May 2006 notice. Airport Authority and Dunning 1. S 54°21′37″ E a distance of 343.67 feet Additionally, five approved Investment Company, Ltd. The land was to an iron pin found. 2. S 55°02′55″ E amendments to previously approved conveyed to the Cambridge Area a distance of 129.55 feet to an iron pin applications are listed. Regional Airport Authority in Deed set. Volume 364, page 656 of the Recorder’s Thence with the lands of now or SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly Office, Guernsey County, Ohio. The formerly Cambridge Area Regional notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals land was acquired under FAA Project Airport as found in Official Record Book and disapprovals under the provisions No. 3–39–0013–0303. There are no 319 Page 732 S 36°20′31″ W a distance of the Aviation Safety and Capacity impacts to the airport by allowing the of 410.12 feet to an iron pin set. Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the airport to dispose of the property. Thence with the lands of now or Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of Approval does not constitute a formerly Cambridge Area Regional 1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of commitment by the FAA to financially Airport as found in Official Record Book the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 assist in the disposal of the subject 384 Page 655 N 54°14′07″ W a distance CFR Part 158). This notice is published airport property nor a determination of of 418.18 feet to an iron pin set. pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29. eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from Thence with the lands of now or PFC Applications Approved the FAA. In exchange, the Cambridge formerly Muskingum Area Technical Public Agency: City of Atlanta, Regional Airport Authority will receive College as found in Official Record Book a parcel of land adjacent to Cambridge ° ′ ″ Georgia. 247 Page 889 N 05 15 28 E a distance Application Number: 06–08–C–00– Municipal Airport. This parcel is of 130.87 feet to the beginning and ATL. necessary to meet design standards for containing 4.105 acres more or less and Application Type: Impose and use a future airport development as indicated being a part of the property conveyed to PFC. on the Airport Layout Plan for Cambridge Area Regional Airport as PFC Level: $4.50. Cambridge Municipal Airport. found in Official Record Book 384 Page Total PFC Revenue Approved in this In accordance with section 47107(h) 655. Decision: $165,206,163. of title 49, United States Code, this Part of A.P. #11–02307. Earliest Charge Effective Date: August notice is required to be published in the Subject to a height restriction 1, 2018. Federal Register 30 days before easement area that is 817 MSL and Estimated Charge Expiration Date: modifying the land-use assurance that described as follows: Beginning at an August 1, 2019. requires the property to be used for an iron pin found at Southeast corner of Class of Air Carriers not Required to aeronautical purpose. the above described property. Collect PFC’S:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:03 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Air taxi/commercial operators. Decision Date: May 31, 2006. Perimeter security. Determination: Approved. Based on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terminal area D/E baggage handling information submitted in the public Nancy Nistler, Minneapolis Airports system upgrades (design). agency’s application, the FAA has district Office, (612) 713–4353. Taxiway rehabilitation program. determined that the proposed class Public Agency: Tucson Airport Brief Description of Projects Approved accounts for less than 1 percent of the Authority, Tucson, Arizona. for Collection and use at a $3.00 PFC total annual enplanements at Hartsfield- Application Number: 06–02–C–00– Level: Jackson Atlanta International Airport. TUS. Terminal roadway resurfacing. Brief Description of Projects Approved Application Type: Impose and use a Equipment and safety training for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC PFC. systems. Level: PFC Level: $4.50. Communications equipment and Site preparation for southside aircraft Total PFC Revenue Approved in this infrastructure. parking positions and taxiways. Decision: $44,194,512. Snow removal equipment. Runway 8R/26L pavement Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1, Glycol recovery vehicles. replacement. 2013. Terminal baggage handling system Brief Description of Projects Partially Estimated Charge Expiration Date: renovations. Approved for Collection and Use at a September 1, 2017. Glycol collection tank. $4.50 PFC Level: Class of Air Carriers not Required to Brief Description of Projects Approved New airport safety/command and Collect PFC’S: for Collection at a $4.50 PFC Level: control center. Nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers Terminal area D/E baggage handling Determination: Partially approved. A filing FAA Form 1800–31. system upgrades (construction). portion of this project did not meet the Determination: Approved. Based on Northwest quadrant perimeter service requirements of § 158.15. Equipment information submitted in the public road. and facilities used for day-to-day airport agency’s application, the FAA has Decision Date: June 9, 2006. operations, such as dormitories and determined that the proposed class FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis kitchenettes are not eligible in accounts for less than 1 percent of the Larte, Washington Airports District accordance with paragraph 603b(3) of total annual enplanements at Tucson Office, (703) 661–1365. FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport International Airport. Public Agency: County of Montrose, Improvement Program Handbook (June Brief Description of Project Approved Montrose, Colorado. 28, 2005). for Collection and Use: Application Number: 06–03–C–MTJ. Runway safety area improvements. Concourse renovation. Application Type: Impose and use a Determination: Partially approved. Decision Date: June 6, 2006. PFC. PFC funding was limited to that portion FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric PFC Level: $4.50. of the project not funded by existing or Vermeeren, Western Pacific Region Total PFC Revenue Approved in this planned Airport Improvement Program Airports Division, (310) 725–3631. Decision: $472.479. grants. Public Agency: Maryland Aviation Earliest Charge Effective Date: August Decision Date: May 31, 2006. Administration, Baltimore, Maryland. 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Application Number: 06–05–C–00– Estimated Charge Expiration Date: Aimee McCormick, Atlanta Airports BWI. February 1, 2008. District Office, (404) 305–7143. Application Type: Impose and use a Class of Air Carriers not Required to Public Agency: County of Outagamie, PFC. Collect PFC’S: Appleton, Wisconsin. PFC Level: $4.50. Air taxi/commercial operators filing Application Number: 06–06–C–00– Total PFC Revenue Approved in this FAA Form 1800–31. ATW. Decision: $206,833,000. Determination: Approved. Based on Application Type: Impose and use a Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, information submitted in the public PFC. 2011. agency’s application, the FAA has PFC Level: $4.50. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: determined that the proposed class Total PFC Revenue Approved in this January 1, 2016. accounts for less than 1 percent of the Decision: $4,717,500. Class of Air Carriers not Required to total annual enplanements at Montrose Earliest Charge Effective Date: Collect PFC’S: Regional Airport. September 1, 2008. Nonscheduled/on-demand air carriers Brief Description of Projects Approved Estimated Charge Expiration Date: filing FAA Form 1800–31. for Collection and Use: January 1, 2013. Determination: Approved. Based on Update airport master plan. Class of Air Carriers not Required to information submitted in the public Construct portion of taxiway alpha. Collect PFC’S: agency’s application, the FAA has Construct taxiway B4/C. Air taxi/commercial operators. determined that the proposed class Expand terminal apron. Determination: Approved. Based on accounts for less than 1 percent of the Update airport master plan phase II. information submitted in the public total annual enplanements at Baltimore- Acquire two pieces of snow removal agency’s application, the FAA has Washington International Thurgood equipment. determined that the proposed class Marshall Airport. Relocate taxiway B. accounts for less than 1 percent of the Brief Description of Projects Approved Decision Date: June 15, 2006. total annual enplanements at Outagamie for Collection and Use at a $4.50 PFC FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: County regional Airport. level: Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports District Brief Description of Projects Approved Security enhancement program. Office, (303) 342–1258. for Collection and Use: Concourses C/D and D/E apron Public Agency: City of San Angelo, Perimeter service road. rehabilitation. Texas. Entrance access road. Concourse B/C apron rehabilitation. Application Number: 06–07–C–00– PFC administration. Airfield lighting and signage. SJT.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41309

Application Type: Impose and use a Class of Air Carriers not Required to Class of Air Carriers not Required to PFC. Collect PFC’S: Collect PFC’S: PFC Level: $4.50. Air taxi/commercial operators. Air taxi/commercial operators filing Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Determination: Approved. Based on FAA Form 1800–31. Decision: $1,568,947. information submitted in the public Determination: Approved. Based on Earliest Charge Effective Date: agency’s application, the FAA has information submitted in the public November 1, 2006. determined that the proposed class agency’s application, the FAA has Estimated Charge Expiration Date: accounts for less than 1 percent of the determined that the proposed class September 1, 2012. total annual enplanements at Chippewa accounts for less than 1 percent of the Class of Air Carriers not Required to Valley regional Airport. total annual enplanements at Collect PFC’S: Brief Description of Projects Approved Albuquerque International Sunport. Air taxi/commercial operators filing for Collection and Use: Brief Description of Projects Approved FAA Form 1800–31. Ramp reconstruction. for Collection and Use: Determination: Approved. Based on Runway 14/32 design. Runway 3/21 extension. information submitted in the public Runway 14/32 reconstruction. Terminal apron rehabilitation. Runway 4 holding bay construction. agency’s application, the FAA has Expand communications center and Taxiway A2 construction. determined that the proposed class equipment. accounts for less than 1 percent of the Connector taxiway construction. Taxilane and ramp construction. Upgrade flight information display total annual enplanements at San system. Angelo Regional Airport/Mathis Field. Land for hanger area expansion. Runway 4/22 safety area Public space (terminal) capacity Brief Description of Projects Approved improvements. enhancement. for Collection and Use: Land acquisition for runway 4/22 Terminal mechanical/electrical/fire Rehabilitate runway 18/36. extension. safety upgrades. Rehabilitate taxiways A, B and H Aircraft rescue and firefighting Construct customs/federal inspection lighting systems. vehicle. station. Rehabilitate runway 9/27 lighting Connector taxiway for taxiways A and Expand passenger screening system. B. checkpoint. Apron rehabilitation. Runway 4/22 rehabilitation. Restructure Spirit Drive. Terminal seating. Land acquisition for future PFC application administrative costs. Decision Date: June 19, 2006. development. Brief Description of Project FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PFC application. Disapproved for Collection and Use: Marcelino Sanchez, Southwest Region Decision Date: June 19, 2006. Extend University Drive. Airports Division, (817) 222–5652. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Determination: This project does not Public Agency: County of Eau Claire, Nancy Nistler, Minneapolis Airports meet the requirements of § 158.15. This Eau Claire, Wisconsin. District Office, (612) 713–4353. roadway does not exclusively serve Application Number: 06–02–C–00– Public Agency: City of Albuquerque, airport traffic, therefore it is not eligible EAU. New Mexico. in accordance with paragraph 620a(3) of Application Type: Impose and use a Application Number: 06–03–C–00– FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport PFC. ABQ. Improvement Program Handbook (June PFC Level: $4.50. Application Type: Impose and use a 28, 2005). Total PFC Revenue Approved in this PFC. Decision Date: June 26, 2006. Decision: $662,411. PFC Level: $3.00. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earliest Charge Effective Date: August Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Andy Velayos, Southwest region 1, 2006. Decision: $66,066,726. Airports Division, (817) 222–5647. Estimated Charge Expiration Date: Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 2014. December 1, 2007. Amendments to PFC Approvals

Original Amended Original esti- Amended esti- Amendment No. city, state Amendment approved net approved net mated charge mated charge approved date PFC revenue PFC revenue exp. date exp. date

05–12–C–01–MKE, Milwaukee, WI ...... 05/16/06 $242,364 $260,614 06/01/18 05/01/18 00–06–C–04–MKE, Milwaukee, WI ...... 06/08/06 123,240,672 130,460,739 11/01/14 02/01/14 02–07–C–03–MKE, Milwaukee, WI ...... 06/08/06 35,205,833 38,807,888 11/01/17 03/01/17 04–10–C–01–MKE, Milwaukee, WI ...... 06/08/06 11,000,601 11,775,601 05/01/18 04/01/18 01–08–C–01–PDX, Portland, OR ...... 06/16/06 551,029,000 551,129,000 05/01/16 05/01/16

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this be held. Public notice will be given of 2006. notice to advise the public that an the time and place of the meetings and Joe Hebert, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) hearing. The draft EIS will be available Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger will be prepared for a proposed highway for public and agency review and Facility Charge Branch. project in Hamilton County, Ohio and comment prior to the public hearing. [FR Doc. 06–6378 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Kenton County, Kentucky. This Notice To ensure that the full range of issues BILLING CODE 4910–13–M of Intent is a follow-up to a notice relating to this proposed action are published in the Federal Register on addressed, and all significant issues June 1, 2000 which advised the public identified, comments and suggestions DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION that a Major Investment Study for the I– are invited from all interested parties. 75 Corridor (completed in 2004) served Comments or questions concerning this Federal Aviation Administration as the formal scoping process for the proposed action and the EIS should be [Docket No. FAA–2004–19058; FAA Order preparation of one or more sent to the FHWA at the address 5050.4B] Environmental Assessments or EISs. provided above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: National Environmental Policy Act (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Mark L. Vonder Embse, Senior (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning Transportation Engineer, Federal and Construction. The regulations Airport Actions Highway Administration, 200 North implementing Executive Order 12372 AGENCY: Federal Aviation High Street, Room 328, Columbus, Ohio regarding intergovernmental consultation on Administration, DOT. 43215, Telephone: (614) 280–6854. Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) ACTION: Notice of Minor Changes to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Order 5050.4B. FHWA, in cooperation with the Ohio Issued On: June 27, 2006. Department of Transportation (ODOT) Victoria Peters, SUMMARY: On April 28, 2006, the and the Kentucky Transportation Engineering & Operations Office Director, Federal Aviation Administration’s Cabinet (KYTC), will prepare an EIS for Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Office of Airports (ARP) issued a Notice proposed improvements to I–75/I–71 Ohio. of Availability for Order 5050.4B, and connecting routes in the vicinity of [FR Doc. E6–11519 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] National Environmental Policy Act the existing Ohio River crossing (Brent BILLING CODE 4910–22–P (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Spence Bridge) and the Cities of Airport Actions (71 FR 25279). Today’s Cincinnati, Ohio and Covington, Notice alerts interested parties that ARP Kentucky. The project termini are DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION has posted an edited version of the approximately the Kyles Lane Order at: http://www.faa.gov/ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Interchange in Covington to the Western airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/ Administration Hills Viaduct Interchange in Cincinnati. publications/orders/ The study area is approximately 6.5 environmental_5050_4/. The newly [Docket No. FMCSA–2005–24783] miles in length. posted Order corrects minor The purpose and need of the project Qualification of Drivers; Exemption grammatical and spelling errors and are to improve traffic flow and level of Applications; Vision incorrect paragraph citations present in service, improve safety, correct the Order issued on April 28, 2006. The geometric deficiencies, and maintain AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety revisions do not change the Order’s links in key mobility, trade, and Administration (FMCSA), DOT. content. national defense transportation ACTION: Notice of final disposition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. corridors. Alternatives under SUMMARY: Ed Melisky, FAA Office of Airports consideration include: (1) Taking no FMCSA announces its Planning and Environmental Division, action; and (2) rehabilitation/upgrading decision to exempt 47 individuals from FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., of the existing infrastructure combined the vision requirement in the Federal Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) with construction of new facilities on Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 267–5869. His e-mail address is: new alignment; (3) replacement (FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable [email protected]. infrastructure on new alignment; and (4) these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate Dated: June 28, 2006. other alternatives that may be developed during the NEPA process. FHWA, commerce without meeting the Dennis E. Roberts, prescribed vision standard. The Agency Director, Office of Airport, Planning and ODOT, KYTC, and local agencies will be invited to participate in defining the has concluded that granting these Programming, APP–1. exemptions will provide a level of safety [FR Doc. E6–11564 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS, and any significant social, economic, or that is equivalent to, or greater than, the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P environmental issues related to the level of safety maintained without the alternatives. exemptions for these CMV drivers. DATES: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Letters describing the proposed action The exemptions are effective July and soliciting comments will be sent to 20, 2006. The exemptions expire on July Federal Highway Administration appropriate Federal, State, and local 21, 2008. agencies, and to private organizations FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Environmental Impact Statement: and citizens who have previously Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical Hamilton County, OH and Kenton expressed or are known to have interest Qualifications Division, (202) 366–4001, County, KY in this proposal. Comments received [email protected], FMCSA, AGENCY: Federal Highway previously will be considered during Department of Transportation, 400 Administration (FHWA), DOT. the EIS process. A series of public Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301, meetings will be held in the project Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office ACTION: Notice of Intent. area. In addition, a public hearing will hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41311

Monday through Friday, except Federal level that would be achieved absent demonstrated their ability to operate a holidays. such exemption.’’ The statute also commercial vehicle, with their limited SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: allows the Agency to renew exemptions vision, to the satisfaction of the State. at the end of the 2-year period. While possessing a valid CDL or non- Electronic Access Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the CDL, these 47 drivers have been You may see all the comments online 47 applications on their merits and authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate through the Document Management made a determination to grant commerce, even though their vision System (DMS) at http://dmses.dot.gov. exemptions to all of them. The comment disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven Docket: For access to the docket to period closed on July 3, 2006. CMVs with their limited vision for read background documents or Vision and Driving Experience of the careers ranging from 3 to 45 years. In the comments received, go to http:// Applicants past 3 years, five of the drivers have had dms.dot.gov and/or Room PL–401 on The vision requirement in the convictions for traffic violations and the plaza level of the Nassif Building, FMCSRs provides: none of them were involved in crashes. 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, A person is physically qualified to The qualifications, experience, and DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday drive a commercial motor vehicle if that medical condition of each applicant through Friday, except Federal holidays. person has distant visual acuity of at were stated and discussed in detail in Privacy Act: Anyone may search the least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye the June 2, 2006 Notice (71 FR 32183). electronic form of all comments without corrective lenses or visual received into any of DOT’s dockets by acuity separately corrected to 20/40 Basis for Exemption Determination the name of the individual submitting (Snellen) or better with corrective Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the comment (or of the person signing lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least FMCSA may grant an exemption from the comment, if submitted on behalf of 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or the vision standard in 49 CFR an association, business, labor union, or without corrective lenses, field of vision 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely other entity). You may review DOT’s of at least 70 in the horizontal meridian to achieve an equivalent or greater level complete Privacy Act Statement in the in each eye, and the ability to recognize of safety than would be achieved Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, the colors of traffic signals and devices without the exemption. Without the 2000). This statement is also available at showing standard red, green, and amber exemption, applicants will continue to http://dms.dot.gov. (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)). be restricted to intrastate driving. With Background FMCSA recognizes that some drivers the exemption, applicants can drive in do not meet the vision standard, but interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis On June 2, 2006, FMCSA published a have adapted their driving to focuses on whether an equal or greater Notice of receipt of exemption accommodate their vision limitation level of safety is likely to be achieved by applications from 47 individuals, and and demonstrated their ability to drive permitting each of these drivers to drive requested comments from the public (71 safely. The 47 exemption applicants in interstate commerce as opposed to FR 32183). The 47 individuals applied listed in this Notice are in this category. restricting him or her to driving in for exemptions from the vision They are unable to meet the vision intrastate commerce. requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for standard in one eye for various reasons, To evaluate the effect of these drivers who operate CMVs in interstate including amblyopia, coloboma, exemptions on safety, FMCSA commerce. They are: Jawad K. Al- macular scar, aphakia, keratoconus, considered not only the medical reports Shaibani, Kenneth J. Bernard, Allen G. retinal detachment, cataract, corneal about the applicants’ vision, but also Bors, Douglas, L. Brazil, John E. Breslin, scaring, prosthesis, and loss of vision their driving records and experience Marcus S. Burkholder, Raymond L. due to trauma. In most cases, their eye with the vision deficiency. To qualify Brush, Scott F. Chalfant, Leroy A. conditions were not recently developed. for an exemption from the vision Chambers, Harvis P. Cosby, Joseph H. All but twelve of the applicants were standard, FMCSA requires a person to Fowler, Francisco Espinal, Brian G. either born with their vision present verifiable evidence that he/she Hagen, Edward J. Hess, Jr., Ralph E. impairments or have had them since has driven a commercial vehicle safely Holmes, Timothy B. Hummel, Larry L. childhood. The twelve individuals who with the vision deficiency for 3 years. Jarvis, Charles E. Johnston, Volga sustained their vision conditions as Recent driving performance is Kirkwood, Richard M. Kriege, David C. adults have had them for periods especially important in evaluating Leoffler, John C. Lewis, Patrick E. ranging from 4 to 28 years. future safety, according to several Martin, Leland K. McAlhaney, Willam Although each applicant has one eye research studies designed to correlate C. Mohr, Roger Moody, Larry A. which does not meet the vision standard past and future driving performance. Nienhuis, Corey L. Paraf, John J. in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at Results of these studies support the Pribanic, Ronald M. Price, John P. least 20/40 corrected vision in the other principle that the best predictor of Raftis, Matthew B. Richardson, Bruce G. eye, and in a doctor’s opinion, has future performance by a driver is his/her Robinson, Alton M. Rutherford, Wayne sufficient vision to perform all the tasks past record of crashes and traffic N. Savoy, Richard A. Schneider, Joseph necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors’ violations. Copies of the studies may be B. Shaw, Jr., David W. Skillman, opinions are supported by the found at docket number FMCSA–98– Thomas G. Smith, Sandra J. Sperling, applicants’ possession of valid 3637. Kenneth C. Steele, Ryan K. Steelman, commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) or We believe we can properly apply the Paul D. Totty, Charles V. Tracey, Duane non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before principle to monocular drivers, because L. Tysseling, Richard A. Westfall, and issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to data from the Federal Highway Leonard R. Wilson. knowledge and skills tests designed to Administration’s (FHWA) former waiver Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, evaluate their qualifications to operate a study program clearly demonstrate the FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2- CMV. All these applicants satisfied the driving performance of experienced year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption testing standards for their State of monocular drivers in the program is would likely achieve a level of safety residence. By meeting State licensing better than that of all CMV drivers that is equivalent to, or greater than, the requirements, the applicants collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41312 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

March 26, 1996). The fact that interstate operations, involves Discussion of Comments experienced monocular drivers substantial driving on highways on the Advocates for Highway and Auto demonstrated safe driving records in the interstate system and on other roads Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition waiver program supports a conclusion built to interstate standards. Moreover, to FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions that other monocular drivers, meeting driving in congested urban areas from the FMCSR, including the driver the same qualifying conditions as those exposes the driver to more pedestrian qualification standards. Specifically, required by the waiver program, are also and vehicular traffic than exists on Advocates: (1) Objects to the manner in likely to have adapted to their vision interstate highways. Faster reaction to which FMCSA presents driver deficiency and will continue to operate traffic and traffic signals is generally information to the public and makes safely. required because distances between safety determinations; (2) objects to the The first major research correlating them are more compact. These Agency’s reliance on conclusions drawn past and future performance was done conditions tax visual capacity and from the vision waiver program; (3) in England by Greenwood and Yule in driver response just as intensely as 1920. Subsequent studies, building on claims the Agency has misinterpreted interstate driving conditions. The statutory language on the granting of that model, concluded that crash rates veteran drivers in this proceeding have for the same individual exposed to exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and operated CMVs safely under those 31315); and finally (4) suggests that a certain risks for two different time conditions for at least 3 years, most for periods vary only slightly. (See Bates 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the much longer. Their experience and legal validity of vision exemptions. and Neyman, University of California driving records lead us to believe that Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) The issues raised by Advocates were each applicant is capable of operating in addressed at length in 64 FR 51568 Other studies demonstrated theories of interstate commerce as safely as he/she predicting crash proneness from crash (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 has been performing in intrastate (November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586 history coupled with other factors. commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds These factors—such as age, sex, (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January that exempting these applicants from 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21, geographic location, mileage driven and the vision standard in 49 CFR conviction history—are used every day 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level We will not address these points again by insurance companies and motor of safety equal to that existing without vehicle bureaus to predict the here, but refer interested parties to those the exemption. For this reason, the earlier discussions. probability of an individual Agency is granting the exemptions for experiencing future crashes. (See Weber, Two letters of recommendation were the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. received in favor of granting the Federal Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate Potential: An 31136(e) and 31315 to the 47 applicants Application of Multiple Regression vision exemption to two of the listed in the Notice of June 2, 2006 (71 applicants. The first was concerning Analysis of a Poisson Process,’’ Journal FR 32183). of American Statistical Association, Harvis Cosby and it was written by We recognize that the vision of an June 1971) A 1964 California Driver Andrew Johnson, who is a applicant may change and affect his/her Record Study prepared by the California transportation supervisor at Toys R Us ability to operate a CMV as safely as in Department of Motor Vehicles where Mr. Cosby is currently employed. the past. As a condition of the concluded that the best overall crash The second letter was regarding Duane exemption, therefore, FMCSA will predictor for both concurrent and L. Tysseling and it was written by the nonconcurrent events is the number of impose requirements on the 47 Iowa Department of Transportation. single convictions. This study used 3 individuals consistent with the Both letters suggest that these applicants consecutive years of data, comparing the grandfathering provisions applied to be granted Federal vision exemption experiences of drivers in the first 2 years drivers who participated in the due to their high level of with their experiences in the final year. Agency’s vision waiver program. professionalism and safety while Applying principles from these Those requirements are found at 49 driving. CFR 391.64(b) and include the studies to the past 3-year record of the Conclusion 47 applicants, one applicant had a following: (1) That each individual be traffic violation for speeding, two physically examined every year (a) by Based upon its evaluation of the 47 applicants failed to obey a traffic sign, an ophthalmologist or optometrist who exemption applications, FMCSA one applicant failed to drive within the attests that the vision in the better eye exempts Jawad K. Al-Shaibani, Kenneth proper lane, one applicant violated his continues to meet the standard in 49 J. Bernard, Allen G. Bors, Douglas, L. license restriction, and no applicants CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical Brazil, John E. Breslin, Marcus S. were involved in crashes. The examiner who attests that the individual Burkholder, Raymond L. Brush, Scott F. applicants achieved this record of safety is otherwise physically qualified under Chalfant, Leroy A. Chambers, Harvis P. while driving with their vision 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual Cosby, Joseph H. Fowler, Francisco impairment, demonstrating the provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s Espinal, Brian G. Hagen, Edward J. Hess, likelihood that they have adapted their or optometrist’s report to the medical Jr., Ralph E. Holmes, Timothy B. driving skills to accommodate their examiner at the time of the annual Hummel, Larry L. Jarvis, Charles E. condition. As the applicants’ ample medical examination; and (3) that each Johnston, Volga Kirkwood, Richard M. driving histories with their vision individual provide a copy of the annual Kriege, David C. Leoffler, John C. Lewis, deficiencies are good predictors of medical certification to the employer for Patrick E. Martin, Leland K. McAlhaney, future performance, FMCSA concludes retention in the driver’s qualification Willam C. Mohr, Roger Moody, Larry A. their ability to drive safely can be file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s Nienhuis, Corey L. Paraf, John J. projected into the future. qualification file if he/she is self- Pribanic, Ronald M. Price, John P. We believe the applicants’ intrastate employed. The driver must also have a Raftis, Matthew B. Richardson, Bruce G. driving experience and history provide copy of the certification when driving, Robinson, Alton M. Rutherford, Wayne an adequate basis for predicting their for presentation to a duly authorized N. Savoy, Richard A. Schneider, Joseph ability to drive safely in interstate Federal, State, or local enforcement B. Shaw, Jr., David W. Skillman, commerce. Intrastate driving, like official. Thomas G. Smith, Sandra J. Sperling,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41313

Kenneth C. Steele, Ryan K. Steelman, support this effort. In order to expedite Issued in Washington, DC, on July 14, Paul D. Totty, Charles V. Tracey, Duane the return of this equipment for service 2006. L. Tysseling, Richard A. Westfall, and by July 28, 2006, Amtrak requests relief Grady C. Cothen, Jr. Leonard R. Wilson from the vision from the COT&S requirements. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), range of dates in which these cars last Standards and Program Development. subject to the requirements cited above had a COT&S performed is October 2001 [FR Doc. E6–11475 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] (49 CFR 391.64(b)). to July 2002. The regulation requires a BILLING CODE 4910–06–P In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) COT&S every 1,476 days. Prior to being and 31315, each exemption will be valid placed in-service, Amtrak will perform for 2 years unless revoked earlier by a single car air brake test on each car to DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked ensure the integrity of the air brake if: (1) The person fails to comply with system. Additionally, Amtrak will Surface Transportation Board the terms and conditions of the ensure the integrity of all safety critical [STB Finance Docket No. 34843 (Sub-No. exemption; (2) the exemption has systems, as outlined in § 238.303, 1)] resulted in a lower level of safety than § 238.305 and § 238.311. Union Pacific Railroad Company— was maintained before it was granted; or FRA reserves the right to issue a Temporary Trackage Rights (3) continuation of the exemption would temporary interim waiver if an Exemption—BNSF Railway Company not be consistent with the goals and emergency arises or other conditions objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. warrant, before the comment period If the exemption is still effective at the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), ends for this waiver request. end of the 2-year period, the person may pursuant to a written trackage rights apply to FMCSA for a renewal under Interested parties are invited to agreement entered into between BNSF procedures in effect at that time. participate in these proceedings by and Union Pacific Railroad Company submitting written views, data, or (UP), has agreed to grant UP temporary Issued on: July 13, 2006. comments. FRA does not anticipate overhead trackage rights, to expire on Rose A. McMurray, scheduling a public hearing in September 15, 2006, over BNSF’s lines Associate Administrator, Policy and Program connection with these proceedings since between milepost 2.1 (Grand Avenue), Development. the facts do not appear to warrant a St. Louis, MO, and milepost 34.1, [FR Doc. E6–11556 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] hearing. If any interested party desires Pacific, MO, a distance of 32 miles. The BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P an opportunity for oral comment, they original grant of temporary overhead should notify FRA, in writing, before trackage rights exempted in Union the end of the comment period and Pacific Railroad Company—Temporary DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION specify the basis for their request. Trackage Rights Exemption—BNSF Railway Company, STB Finance Docket All communications concerning these Federal Railroad Administration No. 34843 (STB served Mar. 24, 2006), proceedings should identify the covered the same line, but will expire Petition for Waiver of Compliance appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver on or about July 31, 2006. The purpose Petition Docket Number FRA–2006– In accordance with part 211 of Title of this transaction is to modify the 25386) and must be submitted to the 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), temporary overhead trackage rights Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management notice is hereby given that the Federal exempted in STB Finance Docket No. Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), Railroad Administration (FRA) received 34843 to extend the expiration date 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC a request for a waiver of compliance from July 31, 2006, to September 15, 20590. Communications received within with certain requirements of its safety 2006. 20 days of the date of this notice will standards. The individual petition is The transaction was scheduled to be be considered by FRA before final described below, including the party consummated on or after July 7, 2006, action is taken. Comments received after seeking relief, the regulatory provisions the effective date of the notice. The that date will be considered as far as involved, the nature of the relief being purpose of the temporary trackage rights practicable. All written communications requested, and the petitioner’s is to facilitate the performance of concerning these proceedings are arguments in favor of relief. maintenance work on UP lines. available for examination during regular As a condition to this exemption, any The National Railroad Passenger business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the employee affected by the acquisition of Corporation (Amtrak) above facility. All documents in the the temporary trackage rights will be [Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–2006– public docket are also available for protected by the conditions imposed in 25386] inspection and copying on the Internet Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Amtrak seeks a waiver of compliance at the docket facility’s Web site at Rights—BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as from certain provisions of 49 CFR part http://dms.dot.gov. modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.— 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Anyone is able to search the Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 Standards. Specifically, § 238.309(d)(2), electronic form of all comments (1980), and any employee affected by which provide the clean, oil, test, and received into any of our dockets by the the discontinuance of those trackage stencil (COT&S) requirements for air name of the individual submitting the rights will be protected by the brake valves. comment (or signing the comment, if conditions set out in Oregon Short Line In the aftermath of the events submitted on behalf of an association, R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 surrounding Hurricane Katrina, the FRA business, labor union, etc.). You may I.C.C. 91 (1979). identified a need to have passenger car review DOT’s complete Privacy Act This notice is filed under 49 CFR equipment readily available for Statement in the Federal Register 1180.2(d)(8). If it contains false or emergency evacuation purposes. Amtrak published on April 11, 2000. (Volume misleading information, the exemption has responded by making 24 Amfleet I 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the passenger cars, that have been identified Statement may also be found at http:// exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) and are currently in storage, available to dms.dot.gov. may be filed at any time. The filing of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41314 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

a petition to revoke will not misleading information, the exemption purpose of the temporary overhead automatically stay the transaction. is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the trackage rights is to facilitate An original and 10 copies of all exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) maintenance work on UP lines. pleadings, referring to STB Finance may be filed at any time. The filing of As a condition to this exemption, any Docket No. 34843 (Sub-No. 1), must be a petition to revoke will not employees affected by the acquisition of filed with the Surface Transportation automatically stay the transaction. the temporary trackage rights will be Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, An original and 10 copies of all protected by the conditions imposed in DC 20423–0001. In addition, one copy pleadings, referring to STB Finance Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage of each pleading must be served on Docket No. 30868 (Sub-No. 1), must be Rights—BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as Gabriel S. Meyer, Union Pacific Railroad filed with the Surface Transportation modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.— Company, 1400 Douglas St., STOP 1580, Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 Omaha, NE 68179. DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of (1980), and any employee affected by Board decisions and notices are each pleading must be served on Gabriel the discontinuance of those trackage available on our Web site at http:// S. Meyer, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP rights will be protected by the www.stb.dot.gov. 1580, Omaha, NE 65179. conditions set out in Oregon Short Line Decided: July 13, 2006. Board decisions and notices are R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen, 360 By the Board, David M. Konschnik, available on our Web site at http:// I.C.C. 91 (1979). Director, Office of Proceedings. www.stb.dot.gov. This notice is filed under 49 CFR Vernon A. Williams, Decided: July 12, 2006. 1180.2(d)(8). If it contains false or misleading information, the exemption Secretary. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, [FR Doc. E6–11476 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Director, Office of Proceedings. is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) BILLING CODE 4915–01–P Vernon A. Williams, may be filed at any time. The filing of Secretary. a petition to revoke will not [FR Doc. E6–11477 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION automatically stay the transaction. BILLING CODE 4915–01–P An original and 10 copies of all Surface Transportation Board pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34866 (Sub-No. 1), must be [STB Finance Docket No. 30868 (Sub-No. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1)] filed with the Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, Union Pacific Railroad Company— DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of Amendment of Trackage Rights [STB Finance Docket No. 34866 (Sub-No. each pleading must be served on Gabriel Exemption—BNSF Railway Company 1)] S. Meyer, Assistant General Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1400 BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) has Union Pacific Railroad Company— Douglas Street, STOP 1580, Omaha, NE agreed to modify an existing overhead Temporary Trackage Rights 68179. trackage rights agreement, under which Exemption—The Kansas City Southern Board decisions and notices are Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) Railway Company available on our Web site at http:// would be permitted to operate over www.stb.dot.gov. BNSF trackage between mileposts 59.06 The Kansas City Southern Railway and 0.65 and between mileposts 59.06 Company (KCS), pursuant to a written Decided: July 13, 2006. and 60.15, a distance of approximately trackage rights agreement entered into By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, 1.74 miles, in Lincoln, NE. between KCS and Union Pacific Office of Proceedings. UP indicates that the transaction was Railroad Company (UP), has agreed to Vernon A. Williams, to be consummated on July 7, 2006, the grant UP temporary overhead trackage Secretary. effective date of the exemption (7 days rights, to expire on October 31, 2006, [FR Doc. E6–11478 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] over KCS’s trackage between milepost after the exemption was filed). BILLING CODE 4915–01–P The purpose of the amended trackage 482.0 on KCS’s Mexico Subdivision at rights agreement is to exclude from the Kansas City, MO, and milepost 252.1 on KCS’s East St. Louis Terminal agreement the portion of track from DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY milepost 59.06 and milepost 60.15, a Subdivision at Godfrey, IL, a distance of distance of approximately 1.09 miles. approximately 285 miles. The original Submission for OMB Review; UP states that it has never used or grant of temporary overhead trackage Comment Request consummated its right to operate over rights exempted in Union Pacific this track. Thus, pursuant to the Railroad Company—Temporary July 13, 2006. amended trackage rights agreement, UP Trackage Rights Exemption—The The Department of the Treasury has will operate between mileposts 0.65 and Kansas City Southern Railway submitted the following public 59.06, a distance of approximately .65 Company, STB Finance Docket No. information collection requirement(s) to miles. 34866 (STB served May 2, 2006), cover OMB for review and clearance under the As a condition to this exemption, any the same line, but are due to expire on Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, employees affected by the amended July 31, 2006. The purpose of this Public Law 104–13. Copies of the trackage rights will be protected by the transaction is to modify the temporary submission(s) may be obtained by conditions imposed in Norfolk and overhead trackage rights exempted in calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN, STB Finance Docket No. 34866 to Officer listed. Comments regarding this 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in extend the expiration date from July 31, information collection should be Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and 2006, to October 31, 2006. addressed to the OMB reviewer listed Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980). The transaction was scheduled to be and to the Treasury Department This notice is filed under 49 CFR consummated on July 7, 2006, the Clearance Officer, Department of the 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or effective date of the exemption. The Treasury, Room 11000, 1750

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41315

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., OMB Number: 1513–0060. Virgin Islands are necessary for the Washington, DC 20220. Type of Review: Extension. verification of claims for drawback of DATES: Written comments should be Title: Letterhead Applications and distilled spirits excise taxes paid on received on or before August 21, 2006 Notices Relating to Tax-Free Alcohol. such products. to be assured of consideration. Form: TTB REC 5150/4. Respondents: Business or other for- Description: Tax-free alcohol is used profit. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade for nonbeverage purposes in scientific Estimated Total Burden Hours: 160 Bureau (TTB) research and medicinal uses by hours. OMB Number: 1513–0047. educational organizations, hospitals, Clearance Officer: Frank Foote, (202) Type of Review: Extension. laboratories, etc. Permits/Applications 927–9347, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Title: Distilled Spirits Records and control authorized uses and flow. TTB and Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310 Monthly Report of Production REC 5150/4 is designed to protect G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Operations. revenue and public safety. OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, Form: TTB REC 5110/01 and TTB F Respondents: Business or other for- (202) 395–7316, Office of Management 5110.40. profit, not-for-profit institutions, and Budget, Room 10235, New Description: The information Federal, state, local or tribal Executive Office Building, Washington, collected is used to account for governments. DC 20503. proprietor’s tax liability, adequacy of Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,222 bond coverage and protection of the hours. Robert Dahl, revenue. The information also provides OMB Number: 1513–0004. Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. data to analyze trends in the industry, Type of Review: Extension. [FR Doc. E6–11479 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] and plan efficient allocation of field Title: Authorization to Furnish BILLING CODE 4810–31–P resources, audit plant operations, and Financial Information and Certificate of compilation of statistics for government Compliance. economic analysis. Form: TTB F 5030.6. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Respondents: Business or other for- Description: The Right to Financial Submission for OMB Review; profit. Privacy Act of 1978 limits access to Comment Request Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,600 records held by financial institutions hours. and provides for certain procedures to July 13, 2006. OMB Number: 1513–0028. gain access to the information. TTB F The Department of Treasury has Type of Review: Revision. 5030.6 serves as both a customer submitted the following public Title: Application for an Industrial authorization for TTB to receive Alcohol User Permit. information collection requirement(s) to information and as the required OMB for review and clearance under the Form: TTB F 5150.22. certification to the financial institution. Description: TTB F 5150.22 is used to Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Respondents: Business or other for- Public Law 104–13. Copies of the determine the eligibility of the applicant profit. to engage in certain operations and the submission(s) may be obtained by Estimated Total Burden Hours: 500 calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance extent of the operations for the hours. production and distribution of specially Officer listed. Comments regarding this denatured spirits (alcohol/rum). This OMB Number: 1513–0074. information collection should be form identifies the location of the Type of Review: Extension. addressed to the OMB reviewer listed premises and establishes whether the Title: Airlines Withdrawing Stock and to the Treasury Department premises will be in conformity with the from Customs Custody. Clearance Officer, Department of the Federal laws and regulations. Form: TTB REC 5620/2. Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Respondents: Business or other for- Description: Airlines may withdraw Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., profit, not-for-profit institutions, state, tax exempt distilled spirits, wine, and Washington, DC 20220. local, or tribal governments. beer from Customs custody for foreign DATES: Written comments should be Estimated Total Burden Hours: 738 flights. Required record shows amount received on or before August 21, 2006 hours. of spirits and wine withdrawn and flight to be assured of consideration. identification; also has Customs OMB Number: 1513–0048. Financial Management Service Type of Review: Extension. certification; enables TTB to verify that Title: Registration of Distilled Spirits tax is not due; allows spirits and wines OMB Number: 1510–0056. Plant and Miscellaneous Requests and to be traced and maintains Type of Review: Extension. Notices for Distilled Spirits Plants. accountability. Protects tax revenue. Title: ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Form: TTB F 5110.41. The collection of information is Payment Enrollment Form. Description: The information contained in 27 CFR 28.280 and 28.281. Form: FMS 3881. provided by the applicants assists TTB Respondents: Business or other for- Description: Payment data will be in determining eligibility and providing profit. collected from vendors doing business for registration. These eligibility Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,500 with the Federal Government. FMS/ requirements are for persons who wish hours. Treasury will use the information to to establish distilled spirits plant OMB Number: 1513–0089. electronically transmit payments to operations. However, both statutes and Type of Review: Extension. vendors’ financial institutions. regulations allow variances from Title: Liquors and Articles from Respondents: Business or other for- regulations, and this information gives Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. profit, not-for-profit and State, Local or data to permit a variance. Form: TTB REC 5530/3. Tribal Government. Respondents: Business or other for- Description: The information Estimated Total Burden Hours: 17,500 profit. collection requirements for persons hours. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,888 bringing nonbeverage products into the Clearance Officer: Jiovannah Diggs, hours. United States from Puerto Rico and the (202) 874–7662, Financial Management

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 41316 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices

Service, Room 144, 3700 East West Respondents: Business or other for- Income Tax Credit Issue Committee will Highway, Hyattsville, MD 20782. profit. be conducted (via teleconference). The OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,200 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting (202) 395–7316, Office of Management hour. public comments, ideas and suggestions and Budget, Room 10235, New OMB Number: 1513–0088. on improving customer service at the Executive Office Building, Washington, Type of Review: Extension. Internal Revenue Service. DC 20503. Title: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, DATES: The meeting will be held Tax Returns, Claims and Related Michael A. Robinson, Tuesday, August 8, 2006. Documents. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. Form: TTB REC 5000/24. [FR Doc. E6–11481 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 Description: TTB is responsible for (toll-free), or 718–488–2085 (non toll- BILLING CODE 4810–35–P the collection of the excise taxes on free). firearms, ammunition, distilled spirits, wine, beer, cigars, cigarettes, chewing SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY tobacco, snuff, cigarette papers and hereby given pursuant to section tubes and pipe tobacco. Alcohol, 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Submission for OMB Review; tobacco, firearms and ammunition Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Comment Request excise taxes are required to be collected that an open meeting of the Taxpayer July 13, 2006. on the basis of a return. Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax The Department of Treasury has Respondents: Business or other for- Credit Issue Committee will be held submitted the following public profit, individuals or households and Tuesday, August 8, 2006 from 12 p.m. information collection requirement(s) to not-for-profit. to 1 p.m. ET via a telephone conference OMB for review and clearance under the Estimated Total Burden Hours: call. The public is invited to make oral Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 503,921 hours. comments. Individual comments will be Public Law 104–13. Copies of the OMB Number: 1513–0121. limited to 5 minutes. For information or submission(s) may be obtained by Type of Review: Revision. to confirm attendance, notification of calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Title: Labeling of major food allergens. intent to attend the meeting must be Officer listed. Comments regarding this Description: The collection of made with Audrey Y. Jenkins. Ms. information collection should be information involves voluntary labeling Jenkins may be reached at 1–888–912– addressed to the OMB reviewer listed of major food allergens used in the 1227 or (718) 488–2085, send written and to the Treasury Department production of alcohol beverages and comments to Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Clearance Officer, Department of the also involves petitions for exemption Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 from full allergen labeling. The Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or post Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., collection corresponds to the recent comments to the Web site: http:// Washington, DC 20220. amendments to the FD&C Act in Title II www.improveirs.org. Due to limited of Public Law 108–282, 118 Stat. 905. conference lines, notification of intent DATES: Written comments should be Respondents: Business or other for- to participate in the telephone received on or before August 21, 2006 profit. conference call meeting must be made to be assured of consideration. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 730 in advance. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade hour. The agenda will include various IRS Bureau (TTB) Clearance Officer: Frank Foote, (202) issues. OMB Number: 1513–0057. 927–9347, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Dated: July 14, 2006. Type of Review: Extension. and Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310 Ava B. Turner, G. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Title: Letterhead Application and Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, Notices Relating to Wine. [FR Doc. E6–11544 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Form: TTB REC 5120/2. (202) 395–7316, Office of Management Description: Letterhead application and Budget, Room 10235, New BILLING CODE 4830–01–P and notices relating to wine are required Executive Office Building, Washington, to ensure the intended activity will not DC 20503. U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND jeopardize the revenue or defraud Michael A. Robinson, consumers. SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. Respondents: Business or other for- Notice of Open Public Hearing profit. [FR Doc. E6–11482 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] Estimated Total Burden Hours: 825 BILLING CODE 4810–31–P AGENCY: U.S.-China Economic and hour. Security Review Commission. OMB Number: 1513–0010. ACTION: Notice of open public hearing. Type of Review: Extension. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Title: Bonded Wineries—Formula and SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Internal Revenue Service Process for Wine, Letterhead following hearing of the U.S.-China Application and Notices relating to Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Economic and Security Review Formula Wine. Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Commission. Form: TTB F 5120.29. Credit Issue Committee Name: Larry M. Wortzel, Chairman of Description: TTB F 5120.29 is used to the U.S.-China Economic and Security determine the classification of wines for AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Review Commission. labeling and consumer protection. The Treasury. The Commission is mandated by form describes the person filing, type of ACTION: Notice. Congress to investigate, assess, evaluate product to be made and restrictions to and report to Congress annually on the labeling and manufacture. The form SUMMARY: An open meeting of the ‘‘regional economic and security is also used to audit a product. Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned impacts.’’ The mandate specifically

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Notices 41317

charges the Commission to evaluate Commission hearings, can be obtained August 4, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. ‘‘The triangular economic and security from the USCC Web site http:// Eastern Standard Time. A detailed relationship among the United States, www.uscc.gov. agenda for the hearing will be posted to Taipei and the People’s Republic of The August 3 hearing will address the Commission’s Web site at http:// China (including the military ‘‘China’s Role in the World: Is China a www.uscc.gov in the near future. modernization and force deployments of Responsible Stakeholder?’’ and will be ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held in the People’s Republic of China aimed at Co-chaired by Vice Chairman Carolyn Room 385, Russell Senate Office Taipei).’’ In addition, the Commission Bartholomew and Commissioner Daniel Building. Public seating is limited to must examine ‘‘The effect of the large Blumenthal. The August 4 hearing will about 50 people on a first come, first and growing economy of the People’s address ‘‘China’s Energy Security’’ and served basis. Advance reservations are Republic of China on world energy will be Co-chaired by Commissioners not required. supplies and the role the United States Michael Wessel and Daniel Blumenthal. can play (including joint research and Purpose of Hearing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any development efforts and technological member of the public wishing further assistance), in influencing the energy The hearing is designed to assist the information concerning the hearing policy of the People’s Republic of Commission in fulfilling its mandate by should contact Kathy Michels, Associate China.’’ identifying and assessing the impact of Director for the U.S.-China Economic China’s global diplomacy on U.S. and Security Review Commission, 444 Pursuant to this mandate, the national interests, evaluating its North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 602, Commission will hold a public hearing participation in international Washington, DC 20001; phone 202–624– in Washington, DC on August 3–4, 2006. organizations, such as the Shanghai 1409, or via e-mail at Cooperation Organization, examining its Background [email protected]. relationships with countries of concern, This event is the seventh in a series and reviewing China’s energy demands Authority: Congress created the U.S.- of public hearings the Commission will and policies, including its strategies for China Economic and Security Review hold during its 2006 report cycle to oil acquisition and activities of Commission in 2000 in the National collect input from leading experts in international cooperation designed to Defense Authorization Act (Public Law academia, business, industry, improve energy efficiency. Invited 106–398 as amended by Division P of government and the public on the witnesses include congressional the Consolidated Appropriations impact of the economic and national members, administration officials, and Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108–7), as security implications of the U.S. academic experts, and research fellows. amended by Pub. L. 109–108 (November growing bilateral trade and economic Copies of the hearing agenda will be 22, 2005). relationship with China. The August 3– made available on the Commission’s Dated: July 17, 2006. 4 hearing is being conducted to obtain Web site http://www.uscc.gov. Any commentary about issues connected to interested party may file a written Kathleen J. Michels, China’s global diplomatic activities and statement by August 3, 2006, by mailing Associate Director, U.S.-China Economic and strategies and the country’s energy to the contact below. Security Review Commission. security. Information on upcoming Date and Time: Thursday, August 3, [FR Doc. E6–11542 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] hearings, as well as transcripts of past 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 5 pm, and Friday, BILLING CODE 1137–00–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:44 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM 20JYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES_1 Thursday, July 20, 2006

Part II

Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41320 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, B. Authority U.S. Department of Energy, Building C. Background Office of Energy Efficiency and Technologies Program, Mail-stop EE–2J, D. Summary of the Test Procedure Renewable Energy NOPR for Test Procedure for Residential Revisions II. Discussion Central Air Conditioners and Heat A. Proposed substantive changes to the test 10 CFR Part 430 Pumps, docket number EE–RM/TP–02– procedure in Appendix M [Docket No. EE–RM/TP–02–002] 002 and/or RIN number 1904–AB55, B. Proposed substantive changes to other 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., parts of the CFR that affect the testing RIN 1904–AB55 Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please and rating of residential central air submit one signed original paper copy. conditioners and heat pumps Energy Conservation Program for 4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda C. Proposed non-substantive changes to Consumer Products: Test Procedure Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of other parts of the CFR for Residential Central Air Energy, Building Technologies Program, D. Effect of test procedure revisions on Conditioners and Heat Pumps compliance with standards Room 1J–018, 1000 Independence III. Procedural Requirements AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 Renewable Energy, Department of 0121. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Energy. Please submit one signed original paper Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction ACTION: copy. Notice of proposed rulemaking Act and public meeting. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and D. Review Under the National docket number or Regulatory Environmental Policy Act SUMMARY: The Department of Energy E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 (DOE or the Department) is proposing to Information Number (RIN) for this F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 amend its test procedure for residential rulemaking. For detailed instructions on G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates central air conditioners and heat pumps. submitting comments and additional Reform Act of 1995 The proposal implements test procedure information on the rulemaking process, H. Review Under the Treasury and General changes for small-duct, high-velocity see section IV of this document (Public Government Appropriations Act of 1999 systems, multiple-split systems, two- Participation). I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 capacity units, and updates references Docket: For access to the docket to J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 to the current American Society of read background documents or comments received, visit the U.S. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Heating, Refrigerating, and Air- L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Department of Energy, Forrestal Energy Administration (FEA) Act of 1974 standards. The proposal also clarifies Building, Room 1J–018 (Resource Room IV. Public Participation issues associated with sampling and of the Building Technologies Program), A. Attendance at Public Meeting rating both tested and untested systems. 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to The Department will hold a public Washington, DC, 20585–0121, Speak meeting to discuss and receive Telephone Number: (202) 586–2945, C. Conduct of Public Meeting D. Submission of Comments comments on the proposal. between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment DATES: The Department will hold a V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary public meeting on Wednesday, August Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at 23, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in the above telephone number for I. Summary of the Proposed Rule Washington, DC. The Department must additional information regarding A. Overview receive requests to speak at the public visiting the Resource Room. Please note: DOE completed a multi-year meeting before 4 p.m., Wednesday, The Department’s Freedom of rulemaking process to update the DOE August 9, 2006. The Department must Information Reading Room (formerly test procedure for residential central air receive a signed original and an Room 1E–190 at the Forrestal Building) conditioners and heat pumps on electronic copy of statements to be given is no longer housing rulemaking October 11, 2005, when it published an at the public meeting before 4 p.m., materials. amended test procedure in the Federal Wednesday, August 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Register. (70 FR 59122) (Hereafter The Department will accept Michael Raymond, Project Manager, referred to as the October 2005 final comments, data, and information Test Procedures for Residential Central rule.) Today’s notice initiates a new regarding the notice of proposed Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, rulemaking that addresses several test rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the Docket No. EE–RM/TP–02–002, U.S. procedure issues that were identified public meeting, but no later than Department of Energy, Office of Energy too late in the prior rulemaking to allow September 18, 2006. See section IV, Efficiency and Renewable Energy, stakeholders an opportunity to comment ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR for Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, on them. The October 2005 final rule details. 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., was concerned almost exclusively with ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Washington, DC 20585–0121, Appendix M to Subpart B (the test identified by docket number EE–RM/ Telephone Number: (202) 586–9611, e- method proper), which was completely TP–02–002 and/or RIN number 1904– mail: [email protected]; replaced. Today’s revision has AB55, by any of the following methods: Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department significant updates to Subpart B itself, 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, in 10 CFR section 430.24 (units to be www.regulations.gov. Follow the GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, tested). These revisions concern topics instructions for submitting comments. SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) such as the alternative rating method 2. E-mail: 586–9507, e-mail: used to provide efficiency ratings for [email protected]. [email protected]. untested split system combinations, Include docket number EE–RM/TP–02– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: data submission requirements, and 002 and/or RIN number 1904–AB55 in I. Summary of the Proposed Rule sampling requirements. There are also the subject line of the message. A. Overview revisions to the test procedure proper in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41321

Appendix M. These revisions have no may make representations with respect systems. (Sections 2.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.4.2, common theme. Most are concerned to the energy use, efficiency, or cost of and 3.1.4.1.2) with improving the accuracy of the test energy consumed by such products, 2. Reinstating the option of procedure, and with extending coverage except as reflected in tests conducted conducting a cyclic test at high capacity to new central air conditioner features. according to the DOE procedure. when testing a two-capacity unit. (Sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, B. Authority C. Background 3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3) Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy The latest revision of the DOE test 3. Shortening the maximum duration and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act) procedure for central air conditioners of a Frost Accumulation Test on a two- establishes the Energy Conservation and heat pumps—which covers units capacity heat pump when it is operating Program for Consumer Products Other having rated cooling capacities of less at low capacity. (Section 3.9) Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. than 65,000 Btu/h—was published as a 4. Using default equations to 6291 et seq.) The products currently final rule on October 11, 2005 (70 FR approximate the performance of a two- subject to this Program (‘‘covered 59122), effective April 10, 2006. capacity heat pump operating at low products’’) include residential central After the January 22, 2001, capacity, instead of conducting a Frost air conditioners and heat pumps, the publication of the proposed rule for the Accumulation Test. (Section 3.6.3) subject of today’s notice. above rulemaking, stakeholders urged 5. For modulating multi-split systems: Under the Act, the Program consists additional test procedure revisions. On Allowing indoor units to cycle off, of three parts: testing, labeling, and the December 13, 2002, DOE received allowing the manufacturer to specify the Federal energy conservation standards. stakeholder views on these revisions compressor speed used during certain The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is during a public workshop. (Hereafter tests, and introducing a new algorithm responsible for labeling, and DOE referred to as the December 2002 for estimating power consumption. implements the remainder of the workshop.) Written comments were (Sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4, 3.6.4, program. The Department, in received from the American Council for consultation with the National Institute 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2) an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), of Standards and Technology (NIST), is 6. Extending the duct-loss correction Unico, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Lennox authorized to establish or amend test to the indoor capacities used for International, York International, and procedures as appropriate for each of calculating seasonal energy efficiency the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293) the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration ratio (SEER) and heating seasonal The purpose of the test procedures is to Institute (ARI). In addition, five requests performance factor (HSPF). (Sections measure energy efficiency, energy use, for test procedure waiver have been 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9.1, and 3.11) or estimated annual operating cost of a received from manufacturers of multi- 7. Defining ‘‘repeatable’’ for cyclic covered product during a representative, split central air conditioners. These tests. (Section 3.5) average use cycle or period of use. The waivers are necessary because the 8. Articulating a definition of test procedure must not be unduly current test procedure is inadequate for ‘‘standard air.’’ (Definition 1.37) burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. testing these products. 9. Changing one of the cooling-mode 6293(b)(3)) The central air conditioner This test procedure revision addresses outdoor test conditions for units having and heat pump test procedures appear changes requested by stakeholders, a two-capacity compressor. (Sections in title 10 of the Code of Federal either directly or through test procedure 3.2.3 and 4.1.3) Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, waiver requests. A full list of the 10. Renaming ‘‘Cooling and Heating Appendix M. changes appears in the next section. The Certified Air Volume Rates’’ to ‘‘Full- If a test procedure is amended, DOE primary reasons for these changes are: load Air Volume Rates.’’ (Definition is required to determine to what extent, (1) To implement test procedure 1.34) if any, the new test procedure revisions that are needed because of 11. Modifying the criterion for using amendments would alter the measured new energy efficiency standards for an air volume rate that is less than the energy efficiency of any covered small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) manufacturer’s specified value. product as determined under the systems; (2) to better address multi-split (Sections 3.1.4.1.1 and 3.1.4.4.3) existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. units test procedure waivers; and (3) to 12. Revising references to ASHRAE 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that an address sampling and rating issues that Standards (e.g., Standards 23, 37 and amended test procedure would alter the have been raised since the new 116) that have been reaffirmed (i.e., measured energy efficiency of a covered minimum energy efficiency standards reviewed and approved by ASHRAE product, DOE is required to amend the became effective on January 23, 2006. with no substantive changes) or revised too recently to have been included in applicable energy conservation standard D. Summary of the Test Procedure the amended test procedure published with respect to such test procedure. In Revisions determining any such amended energy on October 11, 2005. conservation standard, DOE is required Today’s proposed rule includes Proposed substantive changes to other to measure the energy efficiency or twelve substantive changes to the test parts of the CFR that affect the testing energy use of a representative sample of procedure in Appendix M. It includes and rating of residential central air covered products that minimally eight substantive changes and four non- conditioners and heat pumps: comply with the existing standard. The substantive changes to other parts of the 1. New data-submission-requirements average efficiency or energy use of these CFR that concern rating of central air when verifying an alternative rating representative samples, tested using the conditioners and heat pumps. The method. 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6). amended test procedure, constitutes the proposed test procedure changes are: 2. Guidance on the inclusion of pre- amended standard. (42 U.S.C. Proposed substantive changes to production units in the sample 6293(e)(2)) Appendix M: population used to determine and Beginning 180 days after a test 1. Imposing higher minimum validate the published ratings. 10 CFR procedure for a covered product is external-static-pressure requirements 430.24. prescribed, no manufacturer, and adding test-setup modifications for 3. Clarification of the sample distributor, retailer, or private labeler testing small-duct, high-velocity population used to validate the rated

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41322 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

SEER and the rated HSPF. 10 CFR the minimum external static pressures A definition for SDHV systems was 430.24(m). are 0.15 inches of water for developed by industry members during 4. Clarification of the definition of a conventional blower-coil systems and the previous test procedure rulemaking, ‘‘highest sales volume combination.’’ 10 1.15 inches of water for SDHV systems. and was adopted as Definition 1.35 (10 CFR 430.24(m)(2). Changes to the test procedure that CFR 430.2) in the October 2005 final 5. Upper limit on the difference complement the proposed testing of rule. The combination of this definition, between calculated and tested SEER and SDHV systems at the higher external the higher, lab-verified minimum HSPF values. 10 CFR 430.24(m), 10 CFR static pressures are also proposed today. external-static-pressure requirements, 430.2. Changes are proposed that pertain to and limits on supply-duct sizes 6. Clarification of the published both the equipment setup and the test provides a safeguard against ratings for untested split-system setup. For example, because the conventional systems being classified combinations. 10 CFR 430.24. external-static-pressure taps for the improperly as SDHV systems. 7. Adding requirement that ratings for laboratory test setup are located Today’s proposed rule does not an air conditioner or heat pump that is downstream of the indoor unit, all include changes to the definition of rated with a furnace include the model balance dampers or restrictor devices ‘‘SDHV system.’’ The requirement number of that furnace as part of the on, or inside, the unit must be set fully remains that all SDHV systems must be overall equipment model number. 10 open or on the lowest restriction setting. capable of operating at an external static CFR 430.62(a)(4). To avoid potential abuses of using static pressure of 1.2 inches of water, or 8. For products such as multi-splits regain to meet the lab-measured, higher higher, at their Full-Load Air Volume which have multiple indoor units, external-static requirements and to Rate. During the brief discussion of this instituting a ‘‘tested combination’’ as an otherwise avoid attempts to qualify a issue at the December 2002 workshop, alternative to testing the combination conventional unit as a SDHV unit, limits there was support for making the with ‘‘the largest volume of retail sales.’’ are proposed to the size of the duct definition congruent with the newly 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2), 10 CFR 430.2. connected to the outlet of the indoor proposed testing requirements (Public Proposed non-substantive changes to unit. For cases where a closed-loop, air- Hearing Tr., pages 20, 69). However, related portions of the CFR: enthalpy test apparatus is used on the DOE believes that the difference 1. Clarification of a private labeler’s indoor side, DOE proposes to limit the between the definition (fixed-minimum (i.e., a third party) responsibility for airflow resistance on the inlet side of external static pressure of 1.2 inches of ensuring that reported ratings are based the indoor blower-coil to a maximum water) and the test procedure on an approved alternative method for value of 0.1 inch of water. The balance requirement (variable-minimum rating untested combinations or on of the airflow resistance shall be external static pressure of 1.1–1.2 inches laboratory test data. 10 CFR imposed on the supply side of the of water, depending on capacity) is 430.24(m)(5). indoor blower. Such loading is acceptable. Any unit meeting the 2. Revisions to the definition of ‘‘coil consistent with a field application of a definition can be tested under the test family.’’ 10 CFR 430.2. SDHV system and its smaller supply procedure. The test procedure’s 3. New definition for ‘‘private labeler’’ ducts and room diffusers. Finally, the variable-minimum, external-static- within § 430.2. test setup shall include an adjustable air pressure requirements reflect similar 4. Definitions of terms: ‘‘indoor unit,’’ damper that is positioned immediately variable static-pressure requirements for ‘‘outdoor unit,’’ ‘‘ARM/simulation upstream of the airflow measuring conventional systems. The only effects adjustment factor,’’ and ‘‘tested apparatus. This damper can minimize of changing the definition to incorporate combination.’’ 10 CFR 430.2. air leakage in the airflow measuring a variable-minimum, external-static- An expanded discussion of each apparatus at points upstream of the flow pressure requirement would be to make proposed substantive change is nozzle by reducing the pressure the definition more complicated and provided in the next section. The difference between the duct and the somewhat less stringent. DOE has complete test procedure is not printed surrounding ambient. A maximum determined that it would not improve as part of today’s proposed rule. Instead, differential of 0.5 inches of water is the current definition of ‘‘SDHV only the specific sections of the test proposed. If practicable, the outlet air system’’ if DOE made it congruent with procedure and related parts of the CFR damper box used for cyclic tests can the newly proposed lab testing where changes are proposed are printed. double as this adjustable air damper. requirements. These specific, proposed changes are set Regarding the above-proposed new The DOE’s Office of Hearings and forth at the end of this notice. requirements for equipment and test Appeals (OHA) issued a decision and II. Discussion setup, only one was discussed at the order on May 24, 2004, that requires December 13, 2002 workshop. This SDHV systems manufactured on or after A. Proposed Substantive Changes to the requirement concerns the distribution of January 23, 2006, to achieve SEER and Test Procedure in Appendix M the external resistance between the Heating Seasonal Performance Factor 1. Imposing higher minimum supply and return sides when using a (HSPF) ratings that are not less than external-static-pressure requirements closed-loop test setup. No attendee 11.0 and 6.8, respectively. While the and adding test-setup modifications for opposed this addition, and no opposing changes proposed today would change testing small-duct, high-velocity views were voiced in the written the measure of energy efficiency for systems. Based on consideration of comments that followed. The other SDHV units, the amendments proposed comments received at the December proposed additions were raised in were known by OHA and taken into 2002 workshop, DOE today proposes written comments from Unico, Inc. consideration when OHA issued minimum external-static-pressure levels (Unico), a SDHV manufacturer. (Unico, exceptions to the central air conditioner 1 for SDHV systems that are higher, by 1.0 No. 7) inch of water, than the minimums that in this matter, and (3) appearing at page 4 of 1 A notation in the form ‘‘Unico, No. 7 at 4’’ document number 7. No page number may be cited apply for all other units. For example, identifies a written comment DOE received in this if it is not needed because of the brevity of the for equipment having rated cooling rulemaking. This notation refers to a comment (1) comment, or, as here, the comment is in the form capacities from 29,000 to 42,500 Btu/h, by Unico, (2) in document number 7 in the docket of a series of e-mails.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41323

2 standards for SDHV units. DOE expects high-capacity CD was supported at the heat pump may be overridden during that the test procedure amendments, as December 2002 workshop (Public frost accumulation tests at low capacity proposed, will not cause any SDHV Hearing Tr., pages 67–68). in order to force a defrost cycle prior to product to become noncompliant with The specific changes proposed within 12 hours. In this case, the manufacturer the energy efficiency standards for the DOE test procedure that pertain to would specify the time interval after SDHV units set by OHA. DOE requests the reinstatement of the optional, high- which defrost would be manually comments on the proposed changes, capacity cyclic tests are shown in initiated. The third option is to add a whether they will change the measure of sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, default equation that could be used energy use and whether they will cause 3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3 of the central instead of running the test. any SDHV model to be non-compliant air conditioner and heat pump test The rationale for the first option with DOE’s energy efficiency standards. procedure. comes from draft revisions of In particular, DOE requests stakeholders 3. Shortening the maximum duration International Standards Organization to submit lab test results that show the of a Frost Accumulation Test on a two- (ISO) standards that cover the testing impact of these changes on the measure capacity heat pump when it is operating and rating of residential heat pumps and of efficiency and on compliance with at low capacity. A frost accumulation air conditioners, ISO Standards 5151 the standard. test at low capacity is required if the and 13253. (ISO/DIS 5151R, Non-ducted The specific changes proposed within heat pump cycles between low and high Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps— the DOE test procedure that pertain to heating capacities while matching the Testing and Rating for Performance; ° the above discussion on SDHV systems building load at temperatures of 37 F ISO/DIS 13253R, Ducted Air appear in sections 2.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.4.2, and and lower. Completing such a frost Conditioners and Air-to-Air Heat 3.1.4.1.2 of the central air conditioner accumulation test, as presently Pumps—Testing and Rating for and heat pump test procedure.3 specified, can be difficult, as discussed Performance) Currently, these draft 2. Reinstating the option of below. DOE is proposing changes that revisions call for all heating-capacity conducting a cyclic test at high capacity seek to reduce the test burden, while tests to last a maximum of three hours when testing a two-capacity unit. avoiding changing the measure of HSPF. when using the air-enthalpy test During a frost accumulation test, the Beginning with the January 17, 1980, method. The second option would be an official test period lasts for one effective date of the DOE test procedure extension of the procedure that was complete cycle, from defrost for central air conditioners and heat instituted in the October 2005 test termination to defrost termination—or pumps, the test procedure provided a procedure to handle heat pumps that 12 hours, whichever occurs first. Most rarely used option of conducting cyclic use history-dependent demand-defrost heat pumps conduct a complete cycle testing at high capacity on two-capacity controls. The manually initiated option well in advance of the 12-hour time units. The October 2005 final rule was invoked to avoid running an limit, at least with single-speed units or eliminated the option of testing to excessive number of cycles before two-capacity heat pumps operating at obtain a cyclic-degradation coefficient repeatable defrost cycles occurred. The high capacity. When running a frost third option is consistent with the for high capacity, CD(k = 2) and instead accumulation test at low capacity, assigned the coefficient the same value existing alternative allowed when however, the outdoor coil builds frost testing variable-speed heat pumps. as the cyclic-degradation coefficient for more slowly or not at all. As a result, low capacity, C (k = 2) = C (k = 1), in Instead of running frost accumulation D D frost accumulation tests on two-capacity tests at both the intermediate speed and order to simplify the test procedure. The heat pumps having a demand defrost at maximum speed, the manufacturer change, however, caused some two- and running at low capacity take much has the option of using a specified capacity units (i.e., ones that lock out longer to complete, potentially requiring equation to approximate the maximum- low capacity at certain outdoor the full 12 hours—that is, if the test speed heating capacity and average temperatures) to lose a small SEER or condition tolerances can be maintained power at 35°F outdoor temperature. HSPF rating boost, usually in the 0.1 over the extended period. At the December 2002 workshop, two range, that would have been gained by The frost accumulation test manufacturers, Trane and Copeland, the optional test. There are cases where conditions are, in themselves, a spoke in favor of the default equation a 0.1 boost in SEER or HSPF would be challenge to maintain. The task is more (Public Hearing Tr., pages 62–63). of great value to a manufacturer. Thus, difficult when testing a two-capacity Ducane spoke in favor of a shorter today’s proposed rule includes the heat pump at low capacity. The test- maximum test time, 6 hours instead of option of testing to determine the high- room air reconditioning system has to 12 hours (Public Hearing Tr., page 62). capacity CD. Assigning the value for the be sized to accommodate high-capacity ACEEE expressed a desire for making no low-capacity CD as the high-capacity CD operation and so is more likely change that ultimately discourages now becomes the default option instead mismatched and oversized. The level of innovation (Public Hearing Tr., page of testing at high capacity. Reinstating difficulty also increases because of 64). York favored letting the the option of testing to determine the having to maintain the test-room manufacturer specify the duration of the tolerances over a comparatively longer heating cycle (Public Hearing Tr., page 2 SpacePak/Unico, 29 DOE ¶ 81,002 (2004). period. More opportunity exists for a 65). There was also a discussion of 3 For the aid of the reader, the January 1, 2006, CFR includes both the central air conditioner test perturbation in the operation of the heat making the third option, which is a procedure as it existed prior to the October 2005 pump or the test-room reconditioning default equation, the default procedure. final rule (Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part system to shift the test conditions It was suggested that if a manufacturer 430) and the test procedure as it exists as a result beyond the allowed tolerances. wanted to test, it could use either the of the October 2005 final rule (Appendix M, Nt. to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430). References to the Three related modifications to the test first or second option (Public Hearing central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure were discussed at the Tr., page 66). procedures in today’s proposed rule are to the test December 2002, workshop. The first After considering recommendations procedure as it exists as a result of the October 2005 option is to change the maximum test from NIST, based on its experience, and final rule (Appendix M, Nt. to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430). It is referred to as either the central air interval from 12 hours to either 3 or 6 discussions with industry members conditioner and heat pump test procedure or the hours. A second option is to state in the familiar with running frost October 2005 test procedure. test procedure that the controls of the accumulation tests, DOE believes that if

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

a heat pump has not defrosted in six at low-capacity and 35 °F outdoor estimating power consumption in the hours, it is either (1) not building frost temperature departs from the average intermediate-speed range. Another test or (2) is completely frosted and probably capacity and power derived from procedure change is to remove the has been so for more than half of the linearly interpolating between the limitation on the use of only one indoor interval. In both cases, the benefits from steady-state-heating-performance data at test room. Using two or more indoor test continuing to run the test past 6 hours 47 and 17 °F. Lacking such data, DOE rooms may provide the flexibility are none to minimal. For the ‘‘not- is following the recommendation made needed to test certain multi-splits as building-frost’’ case, extending the test at the December 2002, workshop and complete systems. DOE recognizes that is going to have virtually no impact on proposes using the same default this change, however, will not be a the average heating capacity and average equations that it permits for variable- solution to the prevailing problem power consumption. For the speed heat pumps in lieu of running a where many multi-split systems cannot ‘‘completely frosted’’ alternative, the frost accumulation test at maximum be lab tested, even in the most versatile tested values of average performance speed. These equations estimate that the test facility, due to the too-large number might diminish, but at such a slow rate average heating-capacity and power- of indoor coils. as to be insignificant. consumption values will be 90 percent, The allowance for turning off one or Any benefit from an extended frost and 98.5 percent, respectively, of the more indoor coils during any lab test, if accumulation test, in addition, is further interpolated, steady-state values. These this occurs in normal operation, will reduced because of the comparatively percentages, when applied to low- more likely be relevant during the smaller impact of a low-capacity frost capacity operation, provide conservative intermediate and minimum speed/ accumulation test on HSPF. The results estimates of performance and are capacity tests. However, one or more of the low-capacity frost accumulation proposed in this rulemaking. indoor coils may not operate during a test affect low-capacity performance for DOE prefers to have current maximum-capacity test if the particular the 22, 27, 32, and 37°F temperature laboratory data on which to base the multi-split is configured using multiple bins. For two-capacity heat pumps, selected conservative defaults. Thus, indoor coils whose cumulative rated operating time over this bin temperature DOE requests that the industry share its capacities exceed the rated capacity of range is typically split between low and results from testing two-capacity heat the outdoor unit. During testing, DOE high capacities rather than being pumps at low capacity for the 47, 35, proposes that indoor coils that are exclusively at low capacity. and 17 °F test conditions. The change, cycled off be isolated in order to avoid DOE believes a reduction in the as proposed, is shown in section 3.6.3 any induced space conditioning, so that manufacturers’ test burden is merited of the central air conditioner and heat the aggregated, measured capacity and that any change in the measure of pump test procedure. includes no contribution from an HSPF will be negligible. Thus, DOE 5. For modulating multi-split systems: inactive coil. today proposes that the maximum allowing indoor units to cycle off, At the December 2002 workshop, and duration of a frost accumulation test at allowing the manufacturer to specify the in the comments following the low capacity be changed from 12 hours compressor speed used during certain workshop, stakeholders did not make to 6 hours. This test procedure change tests, and introducing a new algorithm any objection to testing multi-splits in is shown in section 3.9 of the central air for estimating power consumption. the lab in a manner more representative conditioner and heat pump test Certain parts of the current test of field operation. (Public Hearing Tr., procedure. procedure are poorly suited for testing page 54) Allowing on/off control of 4. Using default equations to and rating modulating multi-splits. In indoor coils in the lab is consistent with approximate the performance of a two- particular, three areas where this position. capacity heat pump operating at low shortcomings exist are (1) the As for the two other amendments capacity, instead of conducting a Frost requirement that all indoor coils operate relating to multi-splits that are proposed Accumulation Test. This section builds during all tests, (2) the selection of the in this notice, a brief review of on the discussion of the previous modulation levels for conducting tests background information is helpful. section. Although the proposed on variable-speed systems (maximum, Within the DOE test procedure, amendment discussed above will reduce minimum, and a specified intermediate variable-speed air conditioners and heat the test burden, DOE believes the test speed), and (3) the calculation algorithm pumps were first covered as a result of burden remains considerable, especially for estimating performance over the amendments to the central air if HSPF is relatively insensitive to the intermediate speed/capacity range. The conditioner and heat pump test performance data derived from the test. first area of concern results from a procedures published by DOE in 1988. One example would be a two-capacity requirement developed for mini-split (53 FR 8304, March 14, 1988) These heat pump that locks out low-capacity systems and then wrongly extended to amendments addressed the designs of operation at outdoor temperatures lower multi-split systems. The second and variable-speed systems marketed at the than 35 °F. Such a lockout feature third shortcomings stem from test levels time: split systems having a single would result in the average capacity and and a calculation algorithm that are indoor coil and a single outdoor coil power consumption from the low- reasonable for one-condenser-to-one- (i.e., one-condenser-to-one-evaporator- capacity frost accumulation test being evaporator-coil, variable-speed units but coil systems). These systems could used only for 37 °F-bin calculations. less suited for multi-splits. typically modulate, such that minimum- DOE is amenable to allowing an In an effort to incrementally improve speed operation corresponded to alternative to conducting a low-capacity the test procedure’s coverage of multi- capacities in the range of 40 to 60 frost accumulation test as long as the splits, DOE proposes: (1) Allowing one percent of the maximum-speed capacity. alternative yields conservative estimates or more indoor coils to cycle off during More importantly, for the operating of average capacity and power any test, if this occurs in normal region where the unit modulates to consumption. DOE has not been able to operation, (2) allowing the manufacturer produce a capacity equal to the building obtain information on typical to specify the compressor speed used load, these systems operate most performance degradation at frosting during the minimum-capacity and efficiently at the minimum speed with conditions. Data is needed to quantify intermediate-speed tests, and (3) efficiency monotonically decreasing as how much the heat pump’s performance introducing a different algorithm for the system ramped to maximum speed.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41325

Further, because EER and COP are more not verified in the lab. The algorithm is 13253, 5151, and 15042. (ISO/DIS linear than power consumption, DOE not well suited for multi-split units, 15042P, Multi-split System Air- used efficiency as the parameter for because the predicted efficiency curve Conditioners and Air-to-Air Heat interpolating within the DOE test may overestimate the performance of Pumps—Testing and Rating for procedure.4 one unit while underestimating the Performance) The range of modulation of multi- performance of another unit. DOE next considered the option of splits is greater than for any previously DOE seeks data showing how the allowing an additional test at the evaluated one-condenser-to-one- capacity and power consumption of manufacturer’s rated cooling capacity, evaporator-coil, variable-speed system. multi-split units vary as a function of for the sole purpose of defining the Most multi-splits can modulate their the modulation level and outdoor test building load line used for the SEER bin capacity to levels approaching 10 conditions. Lacking such data, DOE calculations. DOE decided not to percent of rated capacity. Rated proposes to calculate steady-state introduce this option due to possible capacity, for some multi-splits, can be 5 efficiency (EER and COP) over the confusion from having two SEER’s. to 10 percent lower than their maximum intermediate-speed range using piece- There could be one SEER based on a capacity, thus adding to the actual range wise linear fits: a line connecting the building load line tied to the unit’s of modulation. Multi-split minimum- and intermediate-capacity performance at the A-Test condition at manufacturers have informed DOE and balance points and a line connecting the maximum capacity, and a second SEER NIST that both the minimum and intermediate- and maximum-capacity based on the load line derived using the maximum operating capacities balance points. The linear fits should rated capacity at the A-Test conditions. correspond to points of declining yield a conservative estimate of Manufacturers of variable-capacity efficiency with peak efficiency typically performance but are favored because of systems, including multi-splits, can still occurring in the 50-to-70 percent speed/ concern that the second-order fit may show the impact of sizing the unit based capacity range. Thus, for a fixed set of provide poor and most-likely inflated on a rated capacity. ambient conditions, the efficiency- estimates. From a testing standpoint, conducting versus-modulation curve is expected to Associated with the proposal to use a tests at the true minimum capacity, be hump-shaped. piece-wise linear fit of steady-state possibly 10 percent of full load, is The central air conditioner and heat efficiency, DOE also proposes that the difficult. The test room reconditioning pump test procedure’s current algorithm multi-split manufacturer shall specify system has difficulty operating against calls for fitting a second-order the system capacity (i.e., compressor such low loads and maintaining test polynomial (i.e., quadratic equation) to speed, indoor coil configurations, fan conditions within tolerance. Thus, the the efficiency values for the three speeds, etc.) used for the cooling and multi-split’s performance at its true available data points: the minimum- heating intermediate speed/capacity minimum capacity may have to be speed balance point, the intermediate- tests. This change is being proposed so determined by extrapolation of test data speed balance point, and the maximum- that the manufacturer has an collected at higher capacities where the speed balance point. The curve fit is opportunity to verify the peak-efficiency tests are more easily conducted. In this used to obtain an estimate of efficiency capabilities of the multi-split unit being case, some short test would be needed over the outdoor temperature range tested. Defining two other capacities, to verify the true minimum operating where the unit would modulate to maximum and minimum, are the last capacity of the multi-split. provide a space conditioning capacity points specific to this multi-split Alternatively, SEER and HSPF could be that equals the building load. Power discussion. calculated based only on the operational consumption at any intermediate speed DOE proposes that multi-splits be range verified in the steady-state lab operating point is derived from the tested at their maximum capacity tests. For example, if a multi-split were paired capacity and efficiency values (maximum compressor speed), or full tested at 30 percent of capacity even (i.e., power = building load/EER) load, not their rated capacity. The tested though it was reportedly able to ramp corresponding to the chosen outdoor compressor speed shall be the down to 10 percent of capacity, the (bin) temperature. maximum for continuous duty SEER and HSPF calculations would be The above algorithm is well suited for operation as allowed by the unit’s conducted assuming that the unit would one-condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil, controls. For clarity, this tested capacity cycle on and off at building loads that variable-speed systems because the is not a ‘‘turbo’’ mode where a higher fell below the 30 percent capacity curve. intermediate-speed, efficiency-versus- operating speed(s) is allowed but for DOE proposes that the minimum- modulation data is monotonic and only a limited time interval. This clearer capacity test be conducted at a capacity nearly linear. Due to insufficient data, definition of the maximum speed/ specified by the manufacturer. The DOE cannot quantify the value of using capacity test applies to all variable- operating level can be either the the algorithm with multi-split units. In speed systems, not just multi-splits. equipment’s true minimum or a the worst case, multi-split efficiency DOE considered an alternative capacity that is greater than the true may deviate significantly from the approach of allowing the manufacturer minimum but nonetheless chosen by the balanced, parabolic shape that would be to specify the compressor capacity/ manufacturer as its designated predicted by the second-order- speed used for maximum-capacity tests. minimum capacity. DOE prefers that polynomial fit. Another potential However, in use, the variable-capacity multi-split manufacturers specify a problem is that the efficiency at the system operates at capacities/speeds tested minimum capacity for which test- intermediate-speed balance point will above this rated capacity. DOE’s goal is room tolerances are readily likely not be the peak efficiency point. to specify tests that yield a performance maintainable. As with the maximum- As a result, the predicted peak map that is as encompassing and capacity test, the tested capacity shall be efficiency is defined by the curve fit and representative as possible. Specifying one that the unit could maintain the maximum-capacity tests as proposed indefinitely, if needed. DOE further 4 Domanski, Piotr A., ‘‘Recommended Procedure in this notice is consistent with this proposes that SEER and HSPF shall be for Rating and Testing of Variable Speed Air Source goal. The approach is also consistent calculated assuming that the tested Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ NBSIR 88–3781, National Institute of Standards and with the full-load testing approach minimum capacity corresponds to the Technology, May 1988. taken in comparable ISO standards, actual minimum capacity. Extrapolation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41326 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

of performance data will not be 6-percent energy balance was achieved compares the G, the time-integrated permitted for the case where the tested between the primary and secondary test temperature difference on the indoor minimum is actually higher than the methods for measuring capacity. The side, from each ‘‘on’’ cycle. The goal is true minimum. DOE, however, is open correction is also to be used to adjust to have the G values vary by 0.04 °F·hr to comments on how to verify the true the indoor capacities used in calculating or less. ITS looks at two parameters minimum-capacity operation such that SEER and HSPF. Today’s proposed rule when making a judgment on repeatable extrapolation of performance data could includes this corrective action, with one cycles. On the capacity side, ITS seeks be incorporated. exception. The exception applies to the consecutive cycles in which the average At the December 2002 workshop, two indoor capacities used for indoor side air temperature difference Trane recommended that a multi-split calculating a cyclic-degradation changes by 0.3 °F or less. On the input manufacturer make a recommendation coefficient, CD. The effort involved in side, ITS seeks consecutive cycles on the new test points, possibly through accounting for the duct losses, where the average system power a waiver petition (Public Hearing Tr., especially during a cyclic test, is judged consumption for the complete OFF/ON pages 55–56). Copeland, and to a certain as overly burdensome, given the interval changes by 5 watts or less. The extent, ACEEE, expressed concern that adjustment’s small effect. Its impact is ITS criterion for capacity is slightly less multi-splits may be difficult to test with further reduced because the CD stringent than the Excel Comfort the DOE test procedure for central air calculation only requires the ratio of the Systems criterion. The input side conditioners and heat pumps (Public two indoor capacities. Duct losses are criterion imposed by ITS offsets this Hearing Tr., pages 58–61). Since the minimal because the test procedure slight difference. workshop, DOE has received four requires that the supply ductwork be DOE favors defining ‘‘repeatable waiver petitions from manufacturers of insulated to an R–19 level. results’’ in terms of both the unit’s residential multi-split systems. All four This topic spurred little discussion at average capacity (i.e., using the petitions take the approach of seeking the December 2002 workshop. In fact, integrated temperature difference) and waivers from the DOE test procedures the only related substantive discussion its average power consumption. As due to shortcomings in the test was whether the correction could be compared to the above two industry procedure (e.g., no credit for a made within the then-pending final members and their respective in-house simultaneous heating and cooling rulemaking. DOE spoke in favor of the criteria, DOE today proposes mode), the lack of an alternative method issue being considered in a second, comparatively looser target levels. They for rating untested combinations, and separate rulemaking, and so it is are: G values that vary by 0.05 °F·hr or the fact that many multi-split included here. The specific changes less; and consecutive cycles where the combinations simply cannot be lab proposed within the DOE test procedure average system power consumption tested because they have too many that pertain to the above discussion are changes by 10 watts or less. See section indoor coils. These limitations are shown in sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.5 of the test procedure for the specific among those multi-split issues that will 3.9.1, and 3.11 in the central air changes proposed on implementing and be addressed in the future. conditioner and heat pump test defining repeatable results for a cyclic The changes proposed in this notice procedure. test. are offered to address some of the test 7. Defining ‘‘repeatable’’ for cyclic 8. Articulating a definition of procedure shortcomings pertaining to tests. In the October 2005 final rule, the ‘‘standard air.’’ The October 2005 final residential multi-split units. At this following requirement is provided in rule contains a definition for ‘‘standard time, DOE prefers to pursue covering section 3.5e regarding the duration of a air’’ (see § 1.37, Appendix M, Nt. to multi-splits within the central air cyclic test: ‘‘After completing a Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430). This conditioner and heat pump test minimum of two complete compressor definition was, at the time, consistent procedure rather than pursue OFF/ON cycles, determine the overall with the definition contained in the development of a ‘‘multi-split-only’’ test cooling delivered and total electrical public review draft of ASHRAE procedure. DOE welcomes comments on energy consumption during any Standard 37–1988R (see 10 CFR the proposed test procedure changes. subsequent data collection interval 430.22(5)3). During the public review For those that feel multi-split systems where the test tolerances given in Table process, the definition in the ASHRAE are so different as to merit coverage in 8 are satisfied.’’ (70 FR 59122) Many test Standard was modified to highlight that a separate test procedure, DOE asks that laboratories, however, let the test mass density is the key defining they provide suggestions on the possible continue until the results are repeatable. parameter, not the combination of the structure of such a test procedure. These laboratories take extra time to dry air’s temperature and pressure. DOE The specific changes proposed within make sure that they have it right; they proposes to amend its definition of the DOE test procedure that pertain to go further than the specified ‘‘one good ‘‘standard air’’ so that it matches the the above discussion on multi-split interval and done’’ test procedure definition that appears in ASHRAE systems are shown in sections 2.1, 2.2.3, requirement. Standard 37–2005. This change is 2.4.1, 3.2.4, 3.6.4, 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 of In today’s proposed rule, DOE included among the list of substantive the central air conditioner and heat proposes to include the additional changes to emphasize that consistency pump test procedure. requirement that repeatable results be with the revised ASHRAE standard 6. Extending the duct-loss correction obtained before terminating a cyclic test. language causes standard air volume to the indoor capacities used for DOE plans to follow industry practice rates to be expressed in terms of dry air, calculating SEER and HSPF. In the for what qualifies as ‘‘repeatable.’’ At not moist air. The proposed update is recently published test procedure final the December 2002 workshop, two shown in the definition of ‘‘standard rule, a capacity correction for duct attendees spoke to this issue (Public air’’ in section 1.37 of the central air losses was added. This correction was Hearing Tr., pp. 42–43). After the conditioner and heat pump test added for compatibility with existing workshop, NIST discussed the issue procedure. industry practice. Regrettably, the with these two attendees, Excel Comfort 9. Changing one of the cooling-mode correction was applied too narrowly. As Systems (Excel) and Intertek Testing outdoor test conditions for units having published, the correction was only used Services (ITS). Excel indicated that it a two-capacity compressor. To when evaluating whether the required typically runs 5 OFF/ON cycles and minimize the testing burden, the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41327

cooling-mode tests for air conditioners the change to 67 °F outdoor-dry-bulb than the manufacturer’s specified value. and heat pumps having a two-capacity temperature for one wet-coil steady- The criterion for these circumstances, compressor are conducted only at 82 °F state test, DOE also proposes to conduct which applies to ducted blower-coil and 95 °F outdoor-dry-bulb the two dry-coil tests at 67 °F. These systems having a fixed-speed, multi- temperatures. The 82 °F and 95 °F test changes make the test conditions for speed, or variable-speed, variable-air- conditions tend to bracket the key two-capacity units consistent with the volume-rate indoor fan, is reexamined temperature bins in which maximum test conditions specified for variable- in this rulemaking. compressor capacity most affects the speed systems. These two additional The first lab test is the A or A2 Test SEER bin calculation. By comparison, 67 °F tests are denoted by the same (except for heating-only heat pumps). the 82 °F and 95 °F test conditions span identifiers used for the comparable For this test, the unit must generate an a range that tends to be higher than the variable-speed tests: The optional dry- external static pressure that is equal to key temperature bins in which coil steady-state test is the G1 Test and or greater than the applicable value minimum compressor capacity most the optional dry-coil cyclic test is the I1 listed in the test procedure: 0.10, 0.15, affects the SEER bin calculations. As a test. or 0.20 inches of water, the value being result, for the lowest outdoor The specific changes proposed within assigned based on the unit’s (expected) ° ° temperature bins (i.e., 67 F, 72 F, and the DOE test procedure pertaining to rated cooling capacity. When running ° new outdoor test conditions for one 77 F), cooling capacity and electrical the A or A2 Test, the test lab will either power consumption at low (stage) required, and two optional, cooling achieve the manufacturer’s specified air compressor capacity are derived from mode tests for two-capacity units are volume rate and observe the ° ° linearly extrapolating the 82 and 95 F shown in sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3 of the corresponding external static pressure, test results. These extrapolated test procedure. These changes are or it will achieve the specified capacities and powers are more combined with DOE’s earlier proposal minimum external static pressure and susceptible to inaccuracies and, to reinstate the two optional dry-coil observe the air volume rate. If this check unfortunately, can potentially reward tests at high capacity. indicates that the indoor unit, as 10. Renaming ‘‘Cooling and Heating poor performance. In the latter case, for configured, cannot provide the Certified Air Volume Rates’’ to ‘‘Full- example, increased electrical power manufacturer’s specified air volume rate ° load Air Volume Rates.’’ The October consumption during the A1 Test at 95 F and meet the minimum external-static 2005 final rule introduced proper names and low compressor capacity could requirement, the central air conditioner for the air volume rates associated with potentially result in a higher SEER. The and heat pump test procedure (section the many tests that are described in the higher power consumption for the A1 3.1.4.4.3a) says to ‘‘incrementally test procedure. The name given to the Test could cause the power change the setup of the indoor fan (e.g., air volume rate that is used during most consumption for the heavily weighted fan motor pin settings, fan motor speed) 67 °F, 72 °F, and 77 °F bins to be tests was ‘‘Certified Air Volume Rate,’’ prefixed with the qualifier ‘‘Cooling’’ or until the Table 2 [minimum static] underestimated to the point that they requirement is met while maintaining more than offset the higher power ‘‘Heating.’’ Typically, the word ° ‘‘certified’’ is used within the industry the same [target] air volume rate.’’ The consumptions for 87 F and higher central air conditioner and heat pump temperature bins. to identify parameters that are subject to test procedure continues, in the section In today’s proposed rule, DOE verification checks and, if appropriate, cited above: ‘‘If the indoor fan setup proposes to change the outdoor penalties for failure to comply with the conditions used for certain tests on two- rules for accurately reporting the changes cannot provide the minimum capacity air conditioners and heat certified parameter. Examples of such external static, then reduce the air pumps. The first change is the certified parameters are SEER, HSPF, volume rate until the correct Table 2 minimum is equaled.’’ This last case elimination of the steady-state A1 Test at and rated capacity. To avoid confusion 95 °F outdoor temperature. Instead, two- on whether air volume rate is a covers one of two cases where the test capacity units will now be tested at an ‘‘certified parameter’’—which it is not— lab can use an air volume rate that is outdoor-dry-bulb temperature of 67 °F, DOE proposes substituting the word less than the value specified by the and in those few cases where it applies, ‘‘Full-load’’ for ‘‘Certified’’ within the manufacturer. The second case is the at an outdoor-wet-bulb temperature of proper name of the particular air more global stipulation to set the air 53.5 °F. The results from this new volume rate. DOE considered other volume rate to 37.5 scfm per 1000 Btu/ h if the manufacturer’s specified air steady-state test, designated the F1 Test, substitutes, including ‘‘Nominal,’’ shall be used in conjunction with the ‘‘Rated,’’ ‘‘Tested,’’ and ‘‘Target.’’ DOE volume rate yields a higher ratio. results from the current low-capacity welcomes comments on alternative Since the publication of the final rule, test at 82 °F outdoor-dry-bulb substitutes. In addition, DOE seeks DOE now understands that this temperature (i.e., the B1 Test) to comments on instituting this change approach is too rigid and is inconsistent determine the low-capacity cooling within the definition for small-duct, with industry practice. Specifically, capacity and power consumption values high-velocity systems in section 1.35 of although the test requirement to achieve used in SEER bin calculations. With this the central air conditioner and heat the minimum external static pressure change, those outdoor temperature bins pump test procedure. has been universally upheld, the where low-capacity operation 11. Modifying the criterion for using requirement that this be done by first dominates will now be more accurately an air volume rate that is less than the changing the motor’s speed has not been derived by interpolating, as opposed to manufacturer’s specified value. The universally employed. In particular, for extrapolating. October 2005 final rule rigidly specified cases in which the specified minimum The above change caused DOE to the air volume rate to use during each external static pressure is achieved at an consider two additional changes. test. In particular, DOE definitively air volume rate that is slightly less than Currently, the two tests used to stated in section 3.1.4.1.1 of the central the value specified by the manufacturer, determine the low-capacity, cooling- air conditioner and heat pump test the testing customarily proceeds using mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, procedure that there are only two this slightly lower air volume rate rather c C D(k=1), are conducted at 82 °F circumstances in which the test lab than increasing the speed setting of the outdoor-dry-bulb temperature. Given could use an air volume rate that is less fan motor.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41328 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

The desired approach should account completed the reaffirmation, public was used with two different indoor for normal equipment tolerances and review, and publication process in 2005. coils. variability, and should be compatible When an ASHRAE standard is revised, At the December 2002 workshop, with allowing the manufacturer to substantive changes are made. Excel Comfort Systems suggested that specify an air volume rate representative Reaffirmations, by comparison, contain waivers be considered for those cases of the average indoor unit, for each only non-substantive changes and so do where a company cannot meet the indoor unit model. The current, more not alter the technical content of the present requirements for verification rigid, approach causes manufacturers to document. To DOE’s knowledge, the data (Public Hearing Tr., pages 48–50). specify an air volume rate at the low proposal to reference these current Unico spoke in favor of using any valid, end of the range for a typical model. versions of the three ASHRAE standards available data to verify an alternative Because the current algorithm does will not affect the SEER and HSPF rating method (Public Hearing Tr., page not account for the inherent variability ratings calculated using the current or 51). Other manufacturers present in fan motors, housings, and wheels, proposed DOE test procedure. (Trane, Lennox, and Carrier) DOE proposes to add an overall emphasized assuring that the data used tolerance when assigning the indoor-air B. Proposed Substantive Changes to for verification is representative of the volume rate used for testing. This Other Parts of the CFR That Affect the manufacturer’s existing product line change will result in more Testing and Rating of Residential (Public Hearing Tr., pages 52–53). representative testing, because of the Central Air Conditioners and Heat NIST, with industry input, reviewed use of an average air volume rate, rather Pumps section § 430.24(m)(6) and (8) and than a rate on the low end of the range. 1. New data-submission-requirements recommended additions to the existing DOE proposes to assign a tolerance of when verifying an alternative rating requirements. Based on NIST ¥5 percent on the air volume rate method. Presently the CFR states that recommendations, DOE has decided specified by the manufacturer. Thus, if the manufacturer must supply test data that the present requirements are the indoor unit can attain the minimum on four different split-system acceptable but additional options external static pressure while operating combinations. 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6)(iii) should be incorporated to allow at an indoor air volume rate that is Each split-system combination must be flexibility without affecting the quality between 0 and ¥5 percent of the other than the combination with the of the validation process. For example, manufacturer-specified value, then this highest sales volume. Overall, test data as proposed, data from two, three, or lab air volume rate shall be used. The on four different indoor units and two four outdoor units may be used to meet tolerance of ¥5 percent is different models of outdoor units are the requirements for data on four recommended because it is required. Two of the indoor units are to systems. Presently, only two outdoor representative of indoor blower be tested with one model of outdoor units are used to create the four required variations and also because a maximum unit; the remaining two indoor units are systems. tolerance of ¥5 percent in air volume to be tested with the second model of A related issue raised at the December rate typically causes a change in total outdoor unit. 2002 workshop was whether any new capacity that is within the uncertainty Two additional requirements are also limits should be allowed concerning the of the measurement. currently specified in § 430.24(m)(6)(iii). use of ‘‘old’’ verification data (Public Proposed language for effecting the First, the tested capacities of the two Hearing Tr., pages 35–36, 51–53). The above change is provided in the last models of outdoor units, when paired adjective ‘‘old’’ here can mean section of this notice as part of the with their respective highest-sales- verification data for a split system revised section 3.1.4.1.1 of the central volume indoor unit, shall differ by at where the indoor, outdoor, or both units air conditioner and heat pump test least a factor of two. Second, the two are no longer manufactured, or where procedure and, for ducted, heating-only indoor units tested with the same model the data was collected many years ago. heat pumps, section 3.1.4.4.3. DOE of outdoor unit are required to be from In the former case, one question that requests comments on the approach of two different coil families. Finally, in may influence a decision on allowing including the tolerance within the setup addition to data on the four (mixed the use of data based on an obsolete algorithm, and assigning it as a one- system) combinations, performance indoor unit is whether the remaining sided tolerance. DOE also requests data ratings on the outdoor units alone, or on product line includes coils from the concerning the selection of ¥5 percent the outdoor units when coupled to their same coil family. As a step toward as the tolerance. highest-sales-volume indoor unit, are offering clarification on acceptable 12. Revising references to ASHRAE also required. verification data, DOE proposes to Standards (e.g., Standards 23, 37, 116) Some manufacturers find it difficult specifically address the case in which that have been reaffirmed (i.e., reviewed to, or simply cannot, meet the above submitted data includes an obsolete and approved by ASHRAE with no requirements. For example, an indoor coil. In such cases, the data will substantive changes) or revised too independent coil manufacturer who be accepted if the indoor coil is from the recently to have been included in the sells indoor units from only one coil same coil family as other indoor coils amended test procedure published on family for a given capacity range, will that are still in production. October 11, 2005. ASHRAE Standard 23, not be able to meet the two-different- The above proposed changes, along ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Positive coil-families requirement. The with those revisions discussed in the Displacement Refrigerant Compressors requirement of using only two models of next few sections, contribute to a rather and Condensing Units,’’ and Standard outdoor units may also cause difficulty. comprehensive revision of § 430.24(m), 37 ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Often the manufacturers will submit ‘‘Units to be tested.’’ The entire content Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat ARI certification test data for of the proposed 430.24(m) is provided Pump Equipment’’ completed the verification purposes in order to avoid in the regulatory language section revision, public review, and publication having to pay for additional testing. A following this notice. process in 2005. ASHRAE Standard 116, manufacturer is more likely to have test 2. Guidance on the inclusion of pre- ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating for data on its indoor units tested with four production units in the sample Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air different outdoor units than to have data population used to determine and Conditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ where the same model of outdoor unit validate the published ratings. DOE

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41329

seeks to have all manufacturers subject 4. Clarification of the definition of a SEER equipment, such as modulating to the same requirements and to have ‘‘highest sales volume combination.’’ systems. them apply consistent practices in ARI recently implemented an internal The ARI policy avoids the scenario in meeting the DOE regulatory policy whereby all highest-sales-volume which a manufacturer chooses to requirements. In the area of selecting a tested combinations for unitary air designate its highest-rated split-system sample population, the first paragraph conditioners having a rated SEER less combination as the highest-sales-volume of § 430.24, ‘‘Units to be tested,’’ states than 14 must be coil-only units. ARI combination. The process of proving or that ‘‘a sample shall be selected and waives this requirement for through-the- disproving whether sales volume tested comprised of units which are wall and ductless equipment. The ARI supports such a designation would be production units, or are representative policy also requires that all unitary air difficult. If allowed, such a designation of production units of the basic model conditioners having a rated SEER of 14 might lead to many sub-13-SEER being tested, and shall meet the or higher must have a coil-only rating combinations being sold—if not by a following applicable criteria.’’ Similar for each model of outdoor unit. system manufacturer, then with the language is repeated in a subsection The ARI policy improves the systems sold with third-party indoor specific to central air conditioners and likelihood that the outdoor unit, in units. Although such rated coil-only heat pumps, § 430.24(m)(2)(i): ‘‘A combination with any compatible combinations would still have to meet sample of sufficient size, composed of indoor unit, will meet the federal energy the 13-SEER standard and, for ARI production units or representing efficiency standards. The default values members, be subject to certification production units, shall be tested * * *’’ for the fan heat and fan power verification tests, these two safeguards Today’s proposed rule seeks to build on prescribed in the DOE test procedure are not as rigorous as the sample- this requirement by explicitly stating when rating coil-only systems typically population testing required for highest- that pre-production units may be used yield a conservative estimate of indoor sales-volume combinations. Thus, the as part of the sample population, but performance. As in the past, SEER and ARI policy protects against increased only if fabricated using the same tooling HSPF ratings for coil-only listings are availability of truly sub-13-SEER as used for production units (see section expected to remain clustered below the combinations. In making exceptions for through-the- 430.24(m)(1) in the regulatory language listings for blower coils, for the same wall and ductless systems, and by section following this notice). DOE outdoor unit. The coil-only policy helps including the 14-SEER delimiter, the seeks comment on this proposal and any avoid the situation in which an outdoor ARI policy recognizes that there are other alternative requirements that unit combined with a blower coil has a cases where blower-coil combinations should be used to disqualify a pre- tested SEER of 13.0 or 13.5, while the are the predominant, if not exclusive, production unit from being used to same outdoor unit, combined with a option. However, the outdoor units for obtain certified ratings for its full- coil-only indoor unit, would have a the two exception cases are highly production counterpart. tested SEER of only 12.0 or 12.5. Thus, unlikely, if not impossible, to combine 3. Clarification of the sample the policy improves the chances that all with a typical coil-only indoor unit. A population used to validate the rated combinations with a given outdoor unit HSVC having a SEER rating of 14 or SEER and the rated HSPF. Today’s meet DOE’s energy conservation greater is unlikely to yield a sub-13 proposed rule includes a requirement standards. SEER system when combined with a within § 430.24(m)(1)(iii) that a The ARI policy is consistent with the compatible coil-only indoor unit. The manufacturer must use the same heat DOE requirement to test each outdoor policy leaves little chance for sub-13 pump results for both SEER and HSPF unit with its highest-sales-volume SEER combinations to become readily when obtaining certified ratings. For indoor unit. Historically, split-system available to the installer in the field. example, a manufacturer cannot test five condensing units are much more often DOE agrees with the ARI policy and heat pumps in cooling and heating and installed with coil-only indoor units believes that its main elements should then use the results from units 1, 3, and than with blower-coil units. And, for apply to all manufacturers, not just ARI 5 as the basis for the certified SEER those comparatively fewer blower-coil member companies. Therefore, DOE while using the results from units 2, 4, installations, most do not use the seeks to adopt those aspects of the ARI and 5 as the basis for the certified HSPF. highest efficiency motors, which are policy that better define the With one exception, each heat pump usually variable-speed motors. Thus, requirements of a highest-sales-volume unit of the sample population must be now and for the immediate future, the combination. In doing so, DOE proposes tested in both the cooling and heating probability that a split-system one change and two additions. The one mode and their respective results used condensing unit will be most often change is to have the policy apply to all in determining the certified SEER and installed with a blower coil is low, and split-system air conditioners that use a HSPF for the particular heat pump the chances of the highest-sales-volume single-speed compressor rather than to model. The one exception is the case application including a blower coil units having a rated SEER less than 14. where the manufacturer obtains a having the highest-efficiency motor is DOE believes this change offers a sample SEER or HSPF that is equal to remote. slightly cleaner delimiter. One addition or greater than the value at which the The ARI policy is consistent with is to add small-duct, high-velocity manufacturer will certify, while the current and past assignments of highest- systems to the list of exceptions. The other seasonal rating descriptor (HSPF sales-volume combinations for split- second addition is an exception for or SEER, respectively) is below a system air conditioners. A review of split-system air conditioners having threshold value being targeted by the past ARI Unitary Directories shows that design features (e.g., controls, manufacturer. In this case only, one or the vast majority of listings designate a proprietary interface cabling and more additional units may be tested in coil-only system as the highest-sales- handshaking) that prevent its the operating mode, cooling or heating, volume combination (HSVC). For those installation with all coil-only indoor that corresponds to this marginal rating comparatively few cases where a units. This second addition is offered as and the results used as part of the blower-coil combination was so a compromise to manufacturers who sample population for that descriptor. designated, the ratings frequently intend to sell only blower-coils with DOE invites comments on the proposal. corresponded to substantially higher particular outdoor units. In this case,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41330 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

the manufacturer must accept the is expected to mitigate the problem of shall be limited to causing a maximum burden of preventing cases where these inconsistent ratings among competing change of five-percent higher ratings same outdoor units are installed with manufacturers. than those obtained by applying the third-party, coil-only indoor units. The As a further step, DOE today proposes ARM without adjustment. system manufacturer must do more than to place an upper limit on the allowed For cases where the HSVC and the include written disclaimers that the offsets between predicted versus untested combination are both coil-only outdoor units may not be so applied; the measurement-based ratings. Whereas units, the limit described in item 5 manufacturer must incorporate some presently ratings from DOE-approved above, ‘‘Upper limit on the difference feature that only allows blower-coil alternative rating methods receive between calculated and tested SEER and combinations and prevents all coil-only blanket acceptance, the proposed HSPF values,’’ also applies, and misapplications. change would introduce an upper limit therefore may cause the published The text for this proposed offset of 5 percent. Five percent is rating to be less than the value clarification of what constitutes a proposed because of an argument put calculated using the manufacturer’s highest-sales-volume combination is forth by Carrier Corporation that 5 ARM, as adjusted by the ‘‘adjustment provided in § 430.24(m)(2). percent is the upper limit of the factor’’ described above. This proposal, 5. Upper limit on the difference practical efficiency increase that could like the previous one above, should tend between calculated and tested SEER be achieved (Carrier, No. 1). DOE to curb artificially inflated efficiency and HSPF values. Ratings for untested believes that this 5-percent limit will ratings for untested split-system split-system combinations can exceed reduce the occurrence of inflated ratings combinations. the ratings of the highest-sales-volume and therefore proposes a 5-percent- 7. Adding requirement that ratings for tested combination on which the former upper-limit offset. However, this an air conditioner or heat pump that is ratings are based. Ideally, these ratings proposed limit would only apply to rated with a furnace include the model increases occur because of differences cases where the difference in number of that furnace as part of the between the type of expansion device, performance should be smallest: Where overall equipment model number. the type of blower (including with or the HSVC system is a coil-only unit and System manufacturers sometimes seek without fan delay), and the type of coil the untested system is a coil-only unit. SEER and HSPF ratings for complete used in the two different indoor units. Manufacturers having non-highest-sales- systems consisting of a coil-only air The rating offsets, however, are also due volume combinations whose ratings are conditioner or heat pump and a to the inherent limitations of the expected to exceed the 5-percent offset particular model of furnace. To more alternative rating method, the quality of limit have the option of obtaining the clearly delineate published ratings input data used for the ARM ratings by testing. This existing test obtained for such systems, DOE calculations, and, possibly, how the option, which is found in 10 CFR proposes to require that the model ARM itself is applied. 430.24(m)(2)(i), is not subject to the number of the furnace be included as At a DOE public workshop held on proposed 5-percent limit. The proposed part of the published model number, March 29, 2001, Carrier Corporation approach would apply to any untested most likely as an add-on to the indoor reported cases where two systems using combination, whether offered by the unit model number. This proposed the same outdoor unit and very similar system manufacturer or an ICM. clarification is reflected in the proposed indoor units had published ratings that DOE proposes placing limits on the revisions to § 430.62(a)(4)(i) and (ii). differed by as much as 10 percent, or offsets predicted by an alternative rating 8. For products such as multi-splits one full SEER point. (Public Hearing Tr., method in § 430.24(m)(4)(iii) and seeks which have multiple indoor units, page 208) The higher rated combination comments on whether limits should be instituting a ‘‘tested combination’’ as an was either subject to spot checks as part imposed in other cases, not just when alternative to testing the combination of the ARI certification program, or had both combinations are coil-only. with ‘‘the largest volume of retail sales.’’ its representations reviewed by a Finally, data that either confirms or Currently, manufacturers are required to professional engineer for accuracy. refutes the proposed limit of 5 percent select for testing the combination However, the effectiveness of these is requested. manufactured by the condensing unit checks was questioned because, in the 6. Clarification of the published manufacturer likely to have the largest case of the former, a five-percent ratings for untested split-system volume of retail sales. For combinations tolerance must be allowed and, in the combinations. The test procedure states having multiple indoor units, the case of the latter, no guidance was that the ARM shall be used to obtain combination with the largest volume of provided as to how to evaluate or ‘‘representative values of the measures retail sales may be difficult to identify quantify the accuracy. of energy consumption.’’ (See § 430.24 and too complex to test. DOE is To their credit, ARI members sought (m)(2)(ii).) DOE seeks to improve upon therefore proposing an equivalent to address the problem internally by the existing definition by adding new ‘‘tested combination,’’ which should pursuing two changes. The first change quantitative requirements. Thus, DOE remove one impediment to the testing of was for system manufacturers to provide today proposes amendments to multi-split units. the Independent Coil Manufacturers § 430.24(m)(4) that require published (ICM) with better data (i.e., condenser ratings for an untested split-system C. Proposed Non-Substantive Changes curves) on which to base the ICM mixed combination to be equal to, or lower to Related Portions of the CFR system ratings—better data in, better than, the value calculated using the 1. Clarification of a private labeler’s predictions out. The second change was DOE-approved ARM. For those (i.e., a third party) responsibility for to conduct more spot checks on manufacturers who use the laboratory ensuring that reported ratings are based combinations rated by ICMs and, when data from the HSVC testing to adjust on an approved alternative method for a failure did occur, to require re-ratings their ARM or a simulation rating untested combinations or on for all combinations using the failed subcomponent, the resulting laboratory test data. The responsibilities indoor unit. Previously, only the one ‘‘adjustment factor’’ shall be applied to of private labelers are set forth in combination that failed certification the ARM calculations for untested Subpart F, Certification and testing was re-rated. The impact of these combinations that use the same outdoor Enforcement, but are delineated in changes is yet to be fully assessed but unit. This adjustment factor, if used, § 430.24. DOE proposes language

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41331

clarifying that private labelers, as well discussions concerning the impact of Accumulation Test would negatively as manufacturers, must seek DOE the proposed changes are offered below. impact the measured HSPF. DOE approval to use an ARM. If the system The proposed changes unique to the estimates that the HSPF could be as manufacturer or the ICM has a DOE- testing of small-duct, high velocity much as 0.3 points lower if the default approved ARM for the products in systems are needed to more accurately equations are used to obtain the value question, the same ARM may be used by measure their performance. DOE’s corresponding to Region IV and the the private labeler. decision in SpacePak/Unico, 29 DOE minimum design-heating requirement. 2. Revisions to the definition of ‘‘coil ¶ 81,002 (2004), on exception relief The changes proposed for testing and efficiency standards for SDHV systems family.’’ DOE proposes minor rating modulating multi-split systems, manufacturers—11.0 SEER and 6.8 modifications to the existing definition, as outlined above in section II.A.5 HSPF—came after the higher minimum adding a few specifics, including certainly will impact their SEER and external-static-pressure requirements of examples of fin shapes: ‘‘flat, wavy, HSPF ratings. These changes, however, section II.A.1 and the new definition of louvered, lanced,’’ and re-formatting for are necessary to allow a reasonable an SDHV system were evaluated. improved readability. approximation of these performance Therefore, any impact from testing at 3. New definition for ‘‘private labeler’’ descriptors. The current test procedure the higher static pressures has already within § 430.2. DOE proposes to is simply deficient in covering these incorporate the definition from the been considered. Reinstating the option of conducting a relatively new products, as is best statute, 42 U.S.C. 6291(15). Hitherto, cyclic test at high-capacity, when testing evidenced by the numerous requests for private labelers were not explicitly a two-capacity unit, is projected to very test procedure waivers that have been referenced in 10 CFR 430.24, but the minimally increase the measured SEER submitted by manufacturers of these proposed revision does explicitly or HSPF rating. This option will be used products. However, it is too early to reference them (see item 1, above). In only when the unit locks out low- know the impact, if any, of these order to facilitate the clarification of capacity operation, typically at the more changes on such equipment that only private labeler responsibility, DOE extreme outdoor temperatures. At these minimally complies with the current proposes to incorporate the statutory more extreme temperatures, the unit energy conservation standards. definition into the definitions section, would be modeled as having a relatively The proposed changes to adopt the § 430.2. high load-factor. The more extreme long-standing industry practice of 4. Definitions of terms: ‘‘Indoor unit,’’ temperatures also correspond to adjusting measured capacities to ‘‘outdoor unit,’’ ‘‘ARM/simulation temperature bins having comparatively account for the losses in the outlet adjustment factor,’’ and ‘‘tested few fractional hours. The combination ductwork is not expected to cause an combination.’’ The terms ‘‘indoor unit’’ acts to minimize the impact of the increase in SEER or HSPF. This and ‘‘outdoor unit’’ are used in the cyclic-degradation coefficient. Thus, the expectation results because the test current test procedure, and in the burden of running this optional test procedure is simply catching up with proposed revisions, but are not defined. would only be considered when a current practice. DOE proposes definitions based on the manufacturer is very close to achieving The proposed change to define current definition of ‘‘condensing unit’’ a target rating and needs less than 0.2 in § 430.2. DOE proposes definitions of ‘‘repeatable’’ when conducting cyclic SEER/HSPF increase in the measured tests is viewed as improving the new terms ‘‘ARM/simulation SEER/HSPF to achieve this target. So, a adjustment factor’’ and ‘‘tested repeatability and thus having a random possible scenario is a two-capacity unit effect on the derived cyclic-degradation combination’’ which are included in that reverts to second-stage cooling only proposed amendments to 10 CFR ° coefficient and, ultimately, the at temperatures above 90 F and the calculated SEER and HSPF. Similarly, 430.24(m). The ARM/simulation optional, high-capacity cyclic test yields making the definition of ‘‘standard air’’ adjustment factor was developed by a C that bumps the measured SEER D consistent with the definition in the NIST and DOE as part of an effort to from 16.85 to 17.0. improve the accuracy of mixed system Two proposed changes specific to 2005 version of ASHRAE Standard 37 ratings. The definition of ‘‘tested two-capacity heat pumps are shortening will have no effect on the SEER and combination’’ is a minor revision to the the duration of the low-capacity Frost HSPF as calculated using the October term as proposed in DOE’s publication Accumulation Test from 12 hours to 6 2005 final rule. of a multi-split petition for waiver. (71 hours, and allowing the use of default Finally, changing the low-capacity FR 14858, March 24, 2006) equations in lieu of testing. As noted cooling-mode test condition from 95 °F to 67 °F for two-capacity units is D. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on above in section II.A.3, the former is projected to change the calculated SEER Compliance With Standards only expected to affect the average space heating capacity and power use at low- very minimally—within ± 0.1 SEER DOE believes the revisions proposed stage and 35 °F to the point of causing points—in most cases. However, the today will not affect the ratings of air a minimal, systematic increase in the reduction in SEER could be very conditioners and heat pumps with SEER derived HSPF for the rare case where considerable if the power consumption and HSPF ratings that minimally the heat pump remains completely during the 95 °F test at low capacity is comply with the current DOE energy frosted beyond 6 hours during this low- increased in an effort to obtain lower conservation standards. Some of the capacity test. Such a heat pump would estimates, through extrapolation, of the proposed revisions are projected to be expected to perform very poorly power consumption for low-capacity at slightly change the ratings of some during the required, high-capacity Frost temperatures less than 82 °F. In general, higher efficiency, two-capacity systems. Accumulation Test, and thus yield a the impact of the change will be The proposed changes that only affect HSPF rating that was at the low end for measurable if the unit’s electrical power higher-efficiency systems (relative to the two-capacity heat pumps. Such draw increases atypically at higher 2006 EPCA minimums), if adopted, performance would likely be outdoor temperatures when operating at would not invoke the requirement for unacceptable to most manufacturers. low-capacity. Manufacturers will now DOE to amend its energy conservation Using default equations in lieu of seek to avoid this because it reduces the minimum standards. More specific conducting the low-capacity Frost SEER rating.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41332 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

III. Procedural Requirements D. Review Under the National U.S.C. 6297) No further action is Environmental Policy Act required by Executive Order 13132. A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 It has been determined that today’s In this proposed rule, the Department F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 regulatory action is not a ‘‘significant proposes amendments to test With respect to the review of existing regulatory action’’ under Executive procedures that may be used to regulations and the promulgation of Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and implement future energy conservation new regulations, section 3(a) of Review.’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). standards for central air conditioners. Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Accordingly, this action was not subject The Department has determined that Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) to review by the Office of Management this rule falls into a class of actions that imposes on Federal agencies the general and Budget under the Executive Order. are categorically excluded from review duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting B. Review Under the Regulatory under the National Environmental errors and ambiguity; (2) write Flexibility Act Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The rule is covered by regulations to minimize litigation; and The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Categorical Exclusion A5, for (3) provide a clear legal standard for U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation rulemakings that interpret or amend an affected conduct rather than a general of an initial regulatory flexibility existing rule without changing the standard and promote simplification analysis for any rule that by law must environmental effect, as set forth in the and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of be proposed for public comment, unless Department’s NEPA regulations in Executive Order 12988 specifically the agency certifies that the rule, if Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part requires that Executive agencies make promulgated, will not have a significant 1021. This rule will not affect the every reasonable effort to ensure that the economic impact on a substantial quality or distribution of energy usage regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the number of small entities. As required by and, therefore, will not result in any preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper environmental impacts. Accordingly, specifies any effect on existing Federal Consideration of Small Entities in neither an environmental impact law or regulation; (3) provides a clear Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 statement nor an environmental legal standard for affected conduct (August 16, 2002), DOE published assessment is required. while promoting simplification and procedures and policies on February 19, burden reduction; (4) specifies the 2003, to ensure that the potential E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately impacts of its rules on small entities are defines key terms; and (6) addresses properly considered during the Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ other important issues affecting clarity rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. The 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes and general draftsmanship under any Department has made its procedures certain requirements on agencies guidelines issued by the Attorney and policies available on the Office of formulating and implementing policies General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order General Counsel’s web site: http:// or regulations that preempt State law or 12988 requires Executive agencies to www.gc.doe.gov. that have federalism implications. The review regulations in light of applicable The Department reviewed today’s Executive Order requires agencies to standards in section 3(a) and section proposed rule under the provisions of examine the constitutional and statutory 3(b) to determine whether they are met the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the authority supporting any action that or it is unreasonable to meet one or procedures and policies published on would limit the policymaking discretion more of them. The Department has February 19, 2003. This proposed rule of the States and to carefully assess the completed the required review and prescribes test procedures that will be necessity for such actions. The determined that, to the extent permitted used to test compliance with energy Executive Order also requires agencies by law, this proposed rule meets the conservation standards. The proposed to have an accountable process to relevant standards of Executive Order rule affects central air conditioner and ensure meaningful and timely input by 12988. heat pump test procedures and would State and local officials in the G. Review Under the Unfunded not have a significant economic impact, development of regulatory policies that Mandates Reform Act of 1995 but rather would provide common have federalism implications. On March testing methods. Therefore DOE certifies 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates that the proposed rule would not have policy describing the intergovernmental Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) a ‘‘significant economic impact on a consultation process it will follow in the (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to substantial number of small entities,’’ development of such regulations. 65 FR assess the effects of Federal regulatory and the preparation of a regulatory 13735. The Department has examined actions on State, local, and Tribal flexibility analysis is not warranted. The today’s proposed rule and has governments and the private sector. For Department will transmit the determined that it does not preempt a proposed regulatory action likely to certification and supporting statement State law and does not have a result in a rule that may cause the of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for substantial direct effect on the States, on expenditure by State, local, and Tribal Advocacy of the Small Business the relationship between the national governments, in the aggregate, or by the Administration for review under 5 government and the States, or on the private sector of $100 million or more U.S.C. 605(b). distribution of power and in any one year (adjusted annually for responsibilities among the various inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires C. Review Under the Paperwork levels of government. EPCA governs and a Federal agency to publish a written Reduction Act prescribes Federal preemption of State statement that estimates the resulting This rulemaking will impose no new regulations as to energy conservation for costs, benefits, and other effects on the information or record keeping the products that are the subject of national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) requirements. Accordingly, Office of today’s proposed rule. States can The UMRA also requires a Federal Management and Budget clearance is petition the Department for a waiver of agency to develop an effective process not required under the Paperwork such preemption to the extent, and to permit timely input by elected Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 officers of State, local, and Tribal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41333

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 with the requirements of section 323(b) intergovernmental mandate,’’ and Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions of the Federal Energy Administration requires an agency plan for giving notice Concerning Regulations That Act, i.e., whether they were developed and opportunity for timely input to Significantly Affect Energy Supply, in a manner that fully provides for potentially affected small governments Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May public participation, comment, and before establishing any requirements 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to review. that might significantly or uniquely prepare and submit to the Office of As required by section 32(c) of the affect small governments. On March 18, Information and Regulatory Affairs Federal Energy Administration Act of 1997, DOE published a statement of (OIRA), Office of Management and 1974, as amended, DOE will consult policy on its process for Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for with the Attorney General and the intergovernmental consultation under any proposed significant energy action. Chairman of the Federal Trade UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined Commission before prescribing a final http://www.gc.doe.gov). The proposed as any action by an agency that rule about the impact on competition of rule published today contains neither an promulgated or is expected to lead to using the methods contained in these intergovernmental mandate nor a promulgation of a final rule, and that: standards. mandate that may result in expenditure (1) Is a significant regulatory action IV. Public Participation of $100 million or more in any year, so under Executive Order 12866, or any these requirements do not apply. successor order; and (2) is likely to have A. Attendance at Public Meeting H. Review Under the Treasury and a significant adverse effect on the The time and date of the public General Government Appropriations supply, distribution, or use of energy, or meeting are listed in the DATES section Act of 1999 (3) is designated by the Administrator of at the beginning of this notice of OIRA as a significant energy action. For proposed rulemaking. The public Section 654 of the Treasury and any proposed significant energy action, meeting will be held at the U.S. General Government Appropriations the agency must give a detailed Department of Energy, Forrestal Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires statement of any adverse effects on Building, Room 1E–245, 1000 Federal agencies to issue a Family energy supply, distribution, or use Independence Avenue, SW., Policymaking Assessment for any rule should the proposal be implemented, Washington, DC 20585–0121. To attend that may affect family well-being. This and of reasonable alternatives to the the public meeting, please notify Ms. rule would not have any impact on the action and their expected benefits on Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586– autonomy or integrity of the family as energy supply, distribution, and use. 2945. Foreign nationals visiting DOE an institution. Accordingly, DOE has Today’s regulatory action would not Headquarters are subject to advance concluded that it is not necessary to have a significant adverse effect on the security screening procedures, requiring prepare a Family Policymaking supply, distribution, or use of energy a 30-day advance notice. Any foreign Assessment. and, therefore, is not a significant national wishing to participate in the energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not meeting should advise DOE of this fact I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones to initiate the L. Review Under Section 32 of the The Department has determined, necessary procedures. under Executive Order 12630, Federal Energy Administration (FEA) ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference Act of 1974 B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to with Constitutionally Protected Property Under section 301 of the Department Speak Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– Any person who has an interest in that this proposed regulation, if 91), DOE must comply with section 32 today’s notice, or who is a promulgated as a final rule, would not of the Federal Energy Administration representative of a group or class of result in any takings which might Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal persons that has an interest in these require compensation under the Fifth Energy Administration Authorization issues, may request an opportunity to Amendment to the United States Act of 1977. 15 U.S.C. 788. Section 32 make an oral presentation. Such persons Constitution. provides that where a proposed rule may hand-deliver requests to speak, J. Review Under the Treasury and contains or involves use of commercial along with a computer diskette or CD in General Government Appropriations standards, the rulemaking must inform WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or Act of 2001 the public of the use and background of text (ASCII) file format to the address such standards. shown in the ADDRESSES section at the Section 515 of the Treasury and The proposed rule incorporates beginning of this notice of proposed General Government Appropriations testing methods contained in the rulemaking between the hours of 9 a.m. Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides following commercial standards: (1) and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, for agencies to review most ASHRAE Standard 23–2005, ‘‘Methods except Federal holidays. Requests may disseminations of information to the of Testing for Rating Positive also be sent by mail or e-mail to: public under guidelines established by Displacement Refrigerant Compressors [email protected]. each agency pursuant to general and Condensing Units;’’ (2) ASHRAE Persons requesting to speak should guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB’s Standard 37–2005, ‘‘Methods of Testing briefly describe the nature of their guidelines were published at 67 FR for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning and interest in this rulemaking and provide 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s Heat Pump Equipment;’’ (3) ASHRAE a telephone number for contact. The guidelines were published at 67 FR Standard 116–2005, and ‘‘Methods of Department requests persons selected to 62446 (October 7, 2002). The Testing for Rating for Seasonal be heard to submit an advance copy of Department has reviewed today’s notice Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners their statements at least two weeks under the OMB and DOE guidelines and and Heat Pumps. The Department has before the public meeting. At its has concluded that it is consistent with evaluated these standards and is unable discretion, DOE may permit any person applicable policies in those guidelines. to conclude whether they fully comply who cannot supply an advance copy of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41334 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

their statement to participate, if that Washington, DC, (202) 586–9127, E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment person has made advance alternative between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday The Department is particularly arrangements with the Building through Friday, except Federal holidays. interested in receiving comments and Technologies Program. The request to Any person may buy a copy of the views of interested parties concerning: give an oral presentation should ask for transcript from the transcribing reporter. 1. Whether any of the proposed such alternative arrangements. D. Submission of Comments changes would affect the measure of C. Conduct of Public Meeting energy efficiency, and if so, to what degree, of any central air conditioner or The Department will designate a DOE The Department will accept comments, data, and information heat pump. official to preside at the public meeting 2. Whether the proposed changes and may also use a professional regarding the proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later would prevent any model from facilitator to aid discussion. The complying with the DOE energy meeting will not be a judicial or than the date provided at the beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking. conservation standards. evidentiary-type public hearing, but 3. The default equations for DOE will conduct it in accordance with Please submit comments, data, and information electronically. Send them to calculating low-capacity performance of 5 U.S.C. 553 and section 336 of EPCA, two-capacity heat pumps at the 35 °F the following e-mail address: 42 U.S.C. 6306. A court reporter will be test condition (see proposed revisions to [email protected]. present to record the proceedings and section 3.6.3). DOE requests data from Submit electronic comments in prepare a transcript. The Department testing at low capacity for the 47, 35, WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or reserves the right to schedule the order and 17 °F test conditions. of presentations and to establish the text (ASCII) file format and avoid the 4. The proposed changes specific to procedures governing the conduct of the use of special characters or any form of multi-split systems. For example, how public meeting. After the public encryption. Comments in electronic should the test procedure account for meeting, interested parties may submit format should be identified by the their full range of modulation even further comments on the proceedings as docket number EE–RM/TP–02–002 and/ though tests may not be possible at the well as on any aspect of the rulemaking or RIN number 1904–AB55, and true minimum capacity? until the end of the comment period. wherever possible carry the electronic 5. Whether a separate test procedure The public meeting will be conducted signature of the author. Absent an for multi-splits should be developed. in an informal, conference style. The electronic signature, comments 6. Whether the proposed quantitative Department will present summaries of submitted electronically must be measures to improve the repeatability of comments received before the public followed and authenticated by cyclic tests (i.e., tolerance on both the meeting, allow time for presentations by submitting the signed original paper cycle-to-cycle integrated temperature participants, and encourage all document. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will difference and average power interested parties to share their views on be accepted. consumption) are justified. issues affecting this rulemaking. Each According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 7. The impact of conducting as many participant will be allowed to make a ° person submitting information that he as three low-capacity tests at the 67 F prepared general statement (within time or she believes to be confidential and test condition. limits determined by DOE), before the exempt by law from public disclosure 8. Whether there is a better descriptor discussion of specific topics. The should submit two copies: one copy of than ‘‘Full-load’’ for replacing Department will permit other the document including all the ‘‘Certified’’ when identifying the air- participants to comment briefly on any information believed to be confidential, volume rate used for most lab tests. general statements. and one copy of the document with the Should the selected descriptor also be At the end of all prepared statements incorporated into the definition for a on a topic, DOE will permit participants information believed to be confidential deleted. The Department of Energy will small-duct, high-velocity system (see to clarify their statements briefly and 1.35): ‘‘at least 1.2 inches (of water) comment on statements made by others. make its own determination about the confidential status of the information when operated at the certified air Participants should be prepared to volume rate of 220–350 cfm per rated answer questions by DOE and by other and treat it according to its determination. ton of cooling * * *’’? participants concerning these issues. 9. The proposed approach for Department representatives may also Factors of interest to the Department establishing the Full-load, Air-Volume ask questions of participants concerning when evaluating requests to treat Rate for blower coil units, with its 0 to other matters relevant to this submitted information as confidential ¥5 percent tolerance during the setup rulemaking. The official conducting the include: (1) A description of the items; process. Data showing the typical public meeting will accept additional (2) whether and why such items are variation in blower performance is comments or questions from those customarily treated as confidential requested. attending, as time permits. The within the industry; (3) whether the 10. The changes proposed within 10 presiding official will announce any information is generally known by or CFR 430.24, ‘‘Units to be tested,’’ that further procedural rules or modification available from other sources; (4) pertain to the alternative rating method of the above procedures that may be whether the information has previously (ARM). Comments and data are sought needed for the proper conduct of the been made available to others without that address the proposed options for public meeting. obligation concerning its ARM verification data, the information The Department will make the entire confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the on the contents of a submittal package, record of this proposed rulemaking, competitive injury to the submitting and the explicit limits on the ARM- including the transcript from the public person which would result from public derived ratings (e.g., a maximum 5 meeting, available for inspection at the disclosure; (6) when such information percent limit for cases where both the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal might lose its confidential character due untested and HSVC units are coil-only Building, Room 1J–018 (Resource Room to the passage of time; and (7) why systems). of the Building Technologies Program), disclosure of the information would be 11. When a pre-production unit 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., contrary to the public interest. should be accepted or excluded from

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41335

the tested sample population used to revived. The sales of two-capacity units labeler’’ and ‘‘tested combination,’’ in obtain the certified ratings. is likely to increase following the higher alphabetical order, to read as follows: 12. The proposal for improving the 2006 DOE efficiency standards and, as definition of a highest-sales-volume a result, there is increasing attention to § 430.2 Definitions. combination, which only applies to test procedure requirements for these * * * * * single-speed air conditioners. products. The reasoning behind the ARM/simulation adjustment factor 13. The proposed definition of a October 2005 final rule approach is that means a factor used to improve the ‘‘tested combination,’’ for combinations most furnaces in the current housing accuracy of a DOE-approved alternative having multiple indoor units? stock (to which a two-capacity coil-only rating method (ARM) for untested split DOE also welcomes comments on any unit would be applied) contain multi- system central air conditioners or heat problems that have arisen with the speed blowers. For these multi-speed pumps. The adjustment factor October 2005 final rule. In that regard, furnace blowers, a typical air volume associated with each outdoor unit shall DOE has received inquiries regarding rate at the lowest speed setting is 75 be set such that it reduces the difference two changes contained in the 2005 test percent of the maximum air volume between the SEER (HSPF) determined procedure. rate. For many other two-capacity units, using the ARM and the tested rating for The October 2005 final rule contains however, the default minimum air the highest sales volume combination. amendments to the definition of a volume rate is higher than the air The ARM/simulation adjustment factor demand-defrost control system volume rate at the lowest speed setting. is an integral part of the ARM and must (definition 1.21) while also singling out Although satisfied with its earlier be a DOE-approved element in one such system, a time-adaptive- decision on this topic, DOE seeks accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4) to defrost control system (definition 1.42). improvements to the test procedure to (m)(6). In order to avoid the excessive number ensure that two-capacity coil-only units * * * * * of frost/defrost cycles needed to obtain are appropriately tested. For example, Coil family means: repeatable performance during a Frost does the test procedure need to cover (1) A group of coils with the same accumulation Test, the October 2005 the effect of a blower kit accessory that basic design features that affect the heat final rule allows the controls of the ensures a proper coil-only field exchanger performance. Examples of time-adaptive system to be overridden. installation? DOE seeks comments on particular features in different categories The frosting interval during the official are: test period, in this case only, now ends this point, in particular, and also on the general issue of rating two-capacity coil- (i) General configuration: A-shape, V- by manually initiating a defrost cycle at shape, slanted or flat top. an elapsed time specified by the only units. If there is sufficient response, DOE would consider (ii) Heat transfer surface on the manufacturer (see section 3.9 of refrigerant side: flat, grooved. Appendix M, Nt., to Subpart B of 10 addressing these issues in a future rulemaking. (iii) Heat transfer surface on the air CFR part 430). To varying degrees, most side: flat, wavy, louver, lanced. heat pumps having a demand defrost- V. Approval of the Office of the (iv) Tube material: copper, aluminum. control system require multiple frost/ Secretary (v) Fin material: copper, aluminum. defrost cycles in the laboratory before The Secretary of Energy has approved (vi) Coil circuitry. repeatable performance results. The (2) When a group of coils has all these need for running several complete publication of today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. features in common, it constitutes a cycles alone, or in combination with ‘‘coil family.’’ relatively long frosting intervals, can List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 lead to long test times. The question * * * * * Administrative practice and arises whether there are cases involving Indoor unit means a component of a procedure, Energy conservation, other control systems where changes split-system central air conditioner or Household appliances. may be required in the future to reduce heat pump that is designed to transfer the testing burden. DOE seeks Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, heat between the refrigerant and the comments on this question. 2006. indoor air, and which consists of an The October 2005 final rule included Alexander A. Karsner, indoor coil, a cooling mode expansion a requirement in section 3.1.4.2 that ‘‘for Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and device, and may include an air moving ducted two-capacity units that are tested Renewable Energy. device. without an indoor fan installed, the For the reasons set forth in the * * * * * Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate is preamble, the Department proposes to Outdoor unit means a component of the higher of (1) the rate specified by the amend part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, a split-system central air conditioner or manufacturer or, (2) 75 percent of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as heat pump that is designed to transfer Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate.’’ follows: heat between the refrigerant and the For heating, in addition, section 3.1.4.5 outdoor air, and which consists of an directs the tester to ‘‘use the Cooling PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION outdoor coil, compressor(s), an air Minimum Air Volume Rate as the PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER moving device, and in addition for heat Heating Minimum Air Volume Rate.’’ PRODUCTS pumps, a heating mode expansion An alternative approach considered device, reversing valve, and defrost 1. The authority citation for part 430 controls. during the prior rulemaking was to continues to read as follows: exclude option (2) above—75 percent of * * * * * the Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. Private labeler means an owner of a Rate—and simply have the 2461 note. brand or trademark on the label of a manufacturer specify the Cooling 2. Section 430.2 is amended in consumer product which bears a private Minimum Air Volume Rate. Although subpart A by revising the definition of label. A consumer product bears a these two alternatives were extensively ‘‘coil family’’ and adding definitions of private label if: debated before publishing the October ‘‘ARM/simulation adjustment factor,’’ (1) Such product (or its container) is 2005 final rule, the issue has been ‘‘indoor unit,’’ ‘‘outdoor unit,’’ ‘‘private labeled with the brand or trademark of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41336 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

a person other than a manufacturer of used for full-production units. The compressor, the indoor unit selected for such product, represented values for any model of tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of (2) The person with whose brand or single-package system, or for any model this section shall be the indoor coil-only trademark such product (or container) is of a tested split-system combination unit manufactured by the system labeled has authorized or caused such shall be assigned such that— manufacturer that is likely to have the product to be so labeled, and (i) Any represented value of estimated largest volume of retail sales with the (3) The brand or trademark of a annual operating cost, energy particular model of outdoor unit. This manufacturer of such product does not consumption or other measure of energy coil-only requirement is annulled for appear on such label. consumption of the central air split-system air conditioners that are * * * * * conditioner or heat pump for which only sold and installed with blower-coil Tested combination means a split consumers would favor lower values indoor units (e.g., mini-splits, multi- system with multiple indoor coils shall be no less than the higher of: splits, small-duct high-velocity, and having the following features: (A) The mean of the sample; or through-the-wall units) and any other (1) The basic model of a system used (B) The upper 90-percent confidence outdoor units that are designed solely as a tested combination shall consist of limit of the true mean divided by 1.05; for application with OEM-supplied one outdoor unit, with one or more and blower-coils and thus have features that compressors, that is matched with (ii) Any represented value of the prevent their installation with third- between 2 and 5 indoor units designed energy efficiency or other measure of party coil-only indoor units. This coil- for individual operation. energy consumption of the central air only requirement does not apply to (2) The indoor units shall— conditioner or heat pump for which split-system heat pumps. For every (i) Represent the highest sales volume consumers would favor higher values other split-system combination that type models; shall be no greater than the lower of: includes the same model of outdoor unit (ii) Together, have a capacity that is (A) The mean of the sample; or but a different model of indoor unit, between 95% and 105% of the capacity (B) The lower 90-percent confidence whether the indoor unit is of the outdoor unit; limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. manufactured by the same manufacturer (iii) For heat pumps, all units of the (iii) Not, individually, have a capacity or by a component manufacturer, sample population shall be tested in that is greater than 50% of the capacity either— of the outdoor unit; both the cooling and heating modes and (i) A sample of sufficient size, (iv) Have a fan speed that is consistent the results used for determining the heat comprised of production and/or pre- with the manufacturer’s specifications; pump’s certified SEER and HSPF ratings production units, shall be tested as and in accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) complete systems with the resulting (v) All have the same external static of this section. When the manufacturer ratings for the outdoor unit-indoor unit pressure. calculates SEER and HSPF ratings in combination obtained in accordance accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of * * * * * with paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) this section, and the value of one 3. Section 430.23 is amended in of this section; any pre-production units descriptor (SEER or HSPF) is equal to or subpart B by revising paragraph (m)(5) included in the sample population must greater than the value the manufacturer to read as follows: have been fabricated using the same will certify in accordance with 10 CFR tooling as used for the full production § 430.23 Test procedure for measures of 430.62, while the other descriptor units; or energy consumption. (HSPF or SEER) is below the value the (ii) The representative values of the * * * * * manufacturer will certify, one or more measures of energy consumption shall (m) * * * additional units may be tested in the be based on an alternative rating method (5) All measures of energy operating mode (cooling or heating, but (ARM) that has been approved by DOE consumption shall be determined by the not both) that corresponds to this in accordance with the provisions of test method as set forth in appendix M marginal rating, and the results paragraphs (m)(4) through (m)(6) of this to this subpart; or by an alternate rating included in the sample population for section. method set forth in § 430.24(m)(4) as calculating the marginal descriptor. (3) Whenever the representative approved by the Assistant Secretary for (2) For split-system air conditioners values of the measures of energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable and heat pumps, the model of indoor consumption, as determined by the Energy in accordance with unit selected for tests pursuant to provisions of paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this § 430.24(m)(5). paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall be section, do not agree within five percent * * * * * the indoor unit manufactured by the of the representative values of the 4. Section 430.24 is amended in outdoor unit (or system) manufacturer measures of energy consumption as subpart B by revising paragraph (m) to that is likely to have the largest volume determined by actual testing, the read as follows: of retail sales in combination with the representative values determined by particular model of outdoor unit. For actual testing shall be used. § 430.24 Units to be tested. combinations that have more than one (4) The basis of the alternative rating * * * * * indoor unit, a ‘‘tested combination,’’ as method referred to in paragraph (m)(1) For central air conditioners and defined in 10 CFR 430.2, shall be used (m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be a heat pumps, each single-package for tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of representation of the test data and system, and each condensing unit this section. Components of similar calculations of a mechanical vapor- (outdoor unit) of a split-system, when design may be substituted without compression refrigeration cycle. The combined with a selected indoor unit, requiring additional testing if the major components in the refrigeration shall have a sample of sufficient size represented measures of energy cycle shall be modeled as ‘‘fits’’ to tested in accordance with the applicable consumption continue to satisfy the manufacturer performance data or by provisions of this subpart. To be applicable sampling provisions of graphic or tabular performance data. included in the sample population, any paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this Heat transfer characteristics of coils may pre-production units must have been section. However, for any split-system be modeled as a function of face area, fabricated using the same tooling as air conditioner having a single-speed number of rows, fins per inch,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41337

refrigerant circuitry, air-flow rate and (ii) Complete documentation of the coils must be selected from this one coil entering-air enthalpy. Additional alternative rating method to allow DOE family. If approved, the ARM shall be performance-related characteristics to be to evaluate its technical adequacy. The specifically limited to applications for considered may include type of documentation shall include a this one coil family. expansion device, refrigerant flow rate description of the methodology, state (iv) All product information on each through the expansion device, power of any underlying assumptions, and mixed system indoor unit, each the indoor fan and cyclic-degradation explain any correlations. The matched system indoor unit, and each coefficient. Ratings for untested documentation should address how the outdoor unit needed to implement the combinations shall be derived from the method accounts for the cyclic- proposed ARM. The calculated ratings ratings of the tested highest-sales- degradation coefficient, the type of for the four mixed systems, as volume combination (HSVC), or from expansion device, and, if applicable, the determined using the proposed ARM, the tested combination. The SEER and/ indoor fan-off delay. The requestor shall shall be provided along with any other or HSPF ratings for an untested submit any computer programs— related information that will aid the combination shall be set equal to or less including spreadsheets—having less verification process. than the lower of: than 200 executable lines that (7) Manufacturers that elect to use an (i) The SEER and HSPF calculated implement the ARM. Longer computer alternative rating method for using the alternative rating method programs must be identified and determining measures of energy (ARM), as adjusted based on the sufficiently explained, as specified consumption under paragraphs maximum allowed ARM/simulation above, but their inclusion in the initial (m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must adjustment factor. This adjustment submittal package is optional. either subject a sample of their units to factor is allowed in cases in which the Applicability or limitations of the ARM independent testing on a regular basis, manufacturer uses laboratory data from (e.g., only covers single-speed units e.g., through a voluntary certification the HSVC testing to adjust its ARM or when operating in the cooling mode, program, or have the representations a simulation subcomponent and then covers units with rated capacities of 3 reviewed and certified by an applies the factor to ratings for untested tons or less, not applicable to the independent state-registered combinations having the same outdoor manufacturer’s product line of non- professional engineer who is not an unit. This adjustment factor, if used, ducted systems, etc.) shall be stated in employee of the manufacturer. The shall not cause a change in ratings the documentation. registered professional engineer is to greater than five percent compared to (iii)(A) Complete test data from certify that the results of the alternative the result of the ARM without the laboratory tests on four mixed (i.e., non- rating procedure accurately represent adjustment factor; or highest-sales-volume combination) the energy consumption of the unit(s). (ii) Five percent higher than the systems per each ARM. The four mixed The manufacturer is to keep the ratings of the tested HSVC. This five systems must include four different registered professional engineer’s percent limit only applies when the indoor units and at least two different certifications on file for review by DOE indoor unit of both the untested outdoor units. A particular model of for as long as said combination is made combination and the HSVC is a coil- outdoor unit may be tested with up to available for sale by the manufacturer. only design (i.e., no indoor blower). two of the four indoor units. The four Any proposed change to the alternative Ratings above this limit can only be systems must include two low-capacity rating method must be approved by obtained for the non-HSVC by testing in mixed systems and two high-capacity DOE prior to its use for rating. accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of mixed systems. The low-capacity mixed (8) Manufacturers who choose to use this section. systems may have any capacity. The computer simulation or engineering (5) Manufacturers or private labelers rated capacity of each high-capacity analysis for determining measures of who elect to use an alternative rating mixed system must be at least a factor energy consumption under paragraphs method for determining measures of of two higher than its counterpart low- (m)(2)(ii) through (m)(6) of this section energy consumption under paragraphs capacity mixed system. shall permit representatives of the (m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must (B) The four indoor units must come Department of Energy to inspect for submit a request for DOE to review the from at least two different coil families, verification purposes the simulation alternative rating method. Send the with a maximum of two indoor units method(s) and computer program(s) request to the Assistant Secretary of coming from the same coil family. Data used. This inspection may include Energy Efficiency and Renewable for two indoor units from the same coil conducting simulations to predict the Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, family, if submitted, must come from performance of particular outdoor SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. testing with one of the ‘‘low-capacity unit—indoor unit combinations Approval must be received from the mixed systems’’ and one of the ‘‘high specified by DOE, analysis of previous Assistant Secretary to use the alternative capacity mixed systems.’’ A mixed simulations conducted by the method before the alternative method system indoor coil may come from the manufacturer, or both. may be used for rating split system same coil family as the highest-sales- * * * * * central air conditioners and heat pumps. volume-combination indoor unit (i.e., If a manufacturer has a DOE-approved the ‘‘matched’’ indoor unit) for the Appendix M—[Amended] ARM for products also distributed in particular outdoor unit. Data on mixed 5. Appendix M to subpart B of part commerce by a private labeler, the ARM systems where the indoor unit is now 430 is amended: may also be used by the private labeler obsolete will be accepted towards the a. In section 1. Definitions: for rating these products. ARM-validation submittal requirement 1. Section 1.5 is amended by (6) Each request to DOE for approval if it is from the same coil family as other removing ‘‘23–93’’ and adding in its of an alternative rating method shall indoor units still in production. place ‘‘23–05’’; and by removing ‘‘1993’’ include: (C) The first two sentences of and adding in its place ‘‘2005.’’ (i) The name, mailing address, paragraph (m)(6)(iii)(B) of this section 2. Section 1.6 is amended by telephone number, and e-mail address shall not apply if the manufacturer removing ‘‘37–88’’ and adding in its of the official representing the offers indoor units from only one coil place ‘‘37–05’’; and by removing ‘‘1988’’ manufacturer. family. In this case only, all four indoor and adding in its place ‘‘2005.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41338 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

3. Section 1.12 is amended by adding 10. Section 3.3c is amended in the 4. Section 4.2.3.3 is amended by ‘‘RA(05)’’ after ‘‘116–95’’; and adding first sentence by removing ‘‘section revising the equation for PLFj and the ‘‘and reaffirmed in 2005’’ after ‘‘1995.’’ 7.3.3.1 of ASHRAE Standard 37–88,’’ text following the equation to read as set 4. Section 1.37 is revised to read as set and adding in its place ‘‘sections 7.3.3.1 forth below. forth below. and 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37– 5. Section 4.2.4.2 is amended by b. In section 2, Testing Conditions: 05.’’ 1. Sections 2.1a, 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.2.3, adding text at the end of the section to 11. The title of sections 3.4 and 3.5 is read as set forth below. 2.2.5, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2 are revised to read revised to read as set forth below. as set forth below. 12. Section 3.5e is revised to read as The additions and revisions read as 2. Section 2.5.3 is amended by set forth below. follows: revising the first sentence to read as set 13. The first two sentences of section Appendix M to Subpart B of Part 430— forth below. 3.5.3 are revised to read as set forth Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 3. New section 2.5.4.3 is added to below. read as set forth below. 14. Section 3.6.3 is revised to read as Energy Consumption of Central Air 4. Section 2.6a is amended by adding set forth below. Conditioners and Heat Pumps in the first sentence ‘‘(RA05)’’ after 15. Table 11 to section 3.6.3 is revised * * * * * ‘‘116–95.’’ to read as set forth below. 1. Definitions 5. Section 2.6b is amended in the 16. Section 3.6.4 is amended by second sentence, and in the last adding a new paragraph c to read as set * * * * * sentence, by removing ‘‘37–88’’ and forth below. 1.37 Standard Air means dry air having a adding in its place ‘‘37–05.’’ 17. Table 12 to section 3.6.4 is revised mass density of 0.075 lb/ft 3. 6. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the to read as set forth below. * * * * * third and fourth sentences, by removing 18. Section 3.7a is amended in the 2. Testing Conditions ‘‘37–88’’ and adding in its place ‘‘37– fifth sentence by removing ‘‘Table 5 of 05.’’ ASHRAE Standard 37–88’’ and adding * * * * * 2.1 Test room requirements. a. Test using 7. Section 2.10.3 is amended in the in its place ‘‘Table 3 of ASHRAE two side-by-side rooms, an indoor test room second sentence, by removing ‘‘7.6.2,’’ Standard 37–05,’’ and in the sixth and an outdoor test room. For multiple-split and adding in its place ‘‘7.5.2,’’ and by sentence, by removing ‘‘Table 5’’ and removing ‘‘37–88’’ and adding in its air conditioners and heat pumps (see adding in its place ‘‘Table 3.’’ Definition 1.30), however, use as many place ‘‘37–05’’ in the second and third 19. Section 3.7b is amended by available indoor test rooms as needed to sentences. revising the first sentence to read as set accommodate the total number of indoor 8. Section 2.11a is amended in the forth below. units. These rooms must comply with the first sentence, by removing ‘‘37–88’’ and 20. The title of section 3.8 is revised requirements specified in sections 8.1.2 and adding in its place ‘‘37–05.’’ to read as set forth below. 8.1.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 9. Section 2.13 is amended in the 21. The introductory text (preceding (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). second sentence, by removing ‘‘37–88’’ the equation) for section 3.8.1 is revised and adding in its place ‘‘37–05.’’ to read as set forth below. * * * * * c. In section 3, Testing Procedures: 22. Section 3.9c is revised to read as 2.2 Test unit installation requirements. a. 1. Section 3.1.1 is amended in the set forth below. Install the unit according to section 8.2 of seventh sentence, by removing ‘‘37–88’’ 23. Section 3.9f is amended by ASHRAE Standard 37–05 (incorporated by and adding in its place ‘‘37–05.’’ revising the fifth sentence to read as set reference, see § 430.22). With respect to 2. Section 3.1.4.1.1 title is revised and forth below. interconnecting tubing used when testing Table 2 to paragraph (c) is revised to 24. Section 3.9.1a is amended by split-systems, however, follow the read as set forth below. adding a new sentence at the end of the requirements given in section 6.1.3.5 of ARI 3. Section 3.1.5 is amended in the first section directly before section 3.9.1.b to Standard 210/240–2003 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). When testing triple- sentence by removing ‘‘37–88’’ and read as set forth below. adding in its place ‘‘37–05.’’ 25. Section 3.11.1.3b is revised to read split systems (see Definition 1.44), use the tubing length specified in section 6.1.3.5 of 4. Section 3.1.6 is amended in the first as set forth below. and second sentences, by removing 26. Section 3.11.2a is amended by ARI Standard 210/240–2003 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22) to connect the ‘‘7.8.3.1 and 7.8.3.2’’ and adding in its revising the seventh sentence to read as place ‘‘7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2,’’ and in the outdoor coil, indoor compressor section, and set forth below. indoor coil while still meeting the first sentence, by removing ‘‘37–88’’ and 27. Section 3.11.2b is revised to read requirement of exposing 10 feet of the tubing adding in its place ‘‘37–05’’, and by as set forth below. to outside conditions. When testing non- 28. Section 3.11.3 is revised to read as adding a new sentence after the second ducted systems having multiple indoor coils, sentence, to read as set forth below. set forth below. connect each indoor fan-coil to the outdoor d. In section 4, CALCULATIONS OF 5. Sections 3.2.3a. and 3.2.3d. are unit using: (a) 25 feet of tubing, or (b) tubing revised to read as set forth below. SEASONAL PERFORMANCE furnished by the manufacturer, whichever is 6. Table 5 to section 3.2.3 is revised DESCRIPTORS: longer. If they are needed to make a to read as set forth below. 1. Section 4.1.3 is amended by secondary measurement of capacity, install 7. Section 3.2.4 is amended by adding revising the introductory text, equations refrigerant pressure measuring instruments as a new paragraph c to read as set forth 4.1.3–1 and 4.1.3–2, and the paragraph described in section 8.2.5 of ASHRAE below. preceding equation 4.1.3–3 to read as set Standard 37–05 (incorporated by reference, 8. Table 6 to section 3.2.4 is revised forth below. see § 430.22). Refer to section 2.10 of this to read as set forth below. 2. Section 4.1.3.3 is amended by Appendix to learn which secondary methods 9. Section 3.3b is amended in both the revising the equation for PLFj and the require refrigerant pressure measurements. first and second sentences, by removing text between the equation and Table 16 At a minimum, insulate the low-pressure ‘‘Table 5,’’ and adding in its place to read as set forth below. line(s) of a split-system with insulation ‘‘Table 3,’’ and in the first sentence by 3. Section 4.1.4.2 is amended by having an inside diameter that matches the removing ‘‘37–88’’ and adding in its adding text at the end of the section to refrigerant tubing and a nominal thickness of place ‘‘37–05.’’ read as set forth below. 1⁄2 inch.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41339

b. For units designed for both horizontal 2.4.1 Outlet plenum for the indoor unit. 2.4.2 Inlet plenum for the indoor unit. and vertical installation or for both up-flow a. Attach a plenum to the outlet of the indoor Install an inlet plenum when testing a coil- and down-flow vertical installations, the coil. (Note: for some packaged systems, the only indoor unit or a packaged system where manufacturer must specify the orientation indoor coil may be located in the outdoor test the indoor coil is located in the outdoor test used for testing. Conduct testing with the room.) For non-ducted systems having room. Add static pressure taps at the center following installed: multiple indoor coils, attach a plenum to of each face of this plenum, if rectangular, or (1) The most restrictive filter(s); each indoor coil outlet. Add a static pressure at four evenly distributed locations along the (2) Supplementary heating coils; and tap to each face of the (each) outlet plenum, circumference of an oval or round plenum. (3) Other equipment specified as part of the if rectangular, or at four evenly distributed Make a manifold that connects the four unit, including all hardware used by a heat locations along the circumference of an oval static-pressure taps using one of the three comfort controller if so equipped (see or round plenum. Create a manifold that configurations specified in section 2.4.1. See Definition 1.28). For small-duct, high- connects the four static pressure taps. Figure Figures 7b, 7c, and Figure 8 of ASHRAE velocity systems, configure all balance 1 shows two of the three options allowed for Standard 37–05 (incorporated by reference, dampers or restrictor devices on or inside the the manifold configuration; the third option see § 430.22) for cross-sectional dimensions, unit to fully open or lowest restriction. is the broken-ring, four-to-one manifold the minimum length of the inlet plenum, and * * * * * configuration that is shown in Figure 7a of the locations of the static-pressure taps. 2.2.3 Special requirements for multi-split ASHRAE Standard 37–05 (incorporated by When testing a ducted unit having an indoor air conditioners and heat pumps, and reference, see § 430.22). See Figures 7a, 7b, fan (and the indoor coil is in the indoor test systems composed of multiple mini-split 7c, and 8 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 room), the manufacturer has the option to units (outdoor units located side-by-side) that (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22) for test with or without an inlet plenum would normally operate using two or more the cross-sectional dimensions and minimum installed. Space limitations within the test indoor thermostats. Allow the controls of the length of the (each) plenum and the locations room may dictate that the manufacturer multi-split or multiple mini-split air for adding the static pressure taps for units choose the latter option. If used, construct conditioner or heat pump (see Definitions tested with and without an indoor fan the inlet plenum and add the four static- 1.30 and 1.29, respectively) to determine the installed. For a non-ducted system having pressure taps as shown in Figure 8 of number of indoor coils, if any, whose fans are multiple indoor coils, have all outlet ASHRAE Standard 37–05 (incorporated by turned off during a given test. For any indoor plenums discharge air into a single common reference, see § 430.22). Manifold the four coil whose fan is automatically turned off duct. At the plane where each plenum enters static-pressure taps using one of the three during a test, take steps to cease forced the common duct, install an adjustable configurations specified in section 2.4.1. airflow through this indoor coil and block its airflow damper and use it to equalize the Never use an inlet plenum when testing a outlet duct. Because these types of systems static pressure in each plenum. For multi- non-ducted system. will have more than one indoor fan and split units tested using more than one indoor possibly multiple outdoor fans and * * * * * test room, create a common duct within each 2.5.3 Section 6.5.2 of ASHRAE compressor systems, references in this test test room that contains multiple indoor coils. procedure to a single indoor fan, outdoor fan, Standard 37–05 (incorporated by reference, Each common duct should feed a separate and compressor means all indoor fans, all see § 430.22) describes the method for outlet air temperature grid (section 2.5.4) and outdoor fans, and all compressor systems that fabricating static pressure taps. * * * airflow measuring apparatus (section 2.6). are active during a test. * * * * * b. For small-duct, high-velocity systems, 2.5.4.3 Minimizing air leakage. For small- * * * * * install an outlet plenum that has a diameter duct, high-velocity systems, install an air 2.2.5 Charging according to the that is equal to or less than the value listed damper near the end of the interconnecting ‘‘manufacturer’s published instructions,’’ as below. The limit depends only on the cooling duct, just prior to the transition to the airflow stated in section 8.2 of ASHRAE Standard Full-Load Air Volume Rate (see section measuring apparatus of Section 2.6. In order 37–05 (incorporated by reference, see 3.1.4.1.1) and is effective regardless of the to minimize air leakage, adjust this damper § 430.22), means the manufacturer’s flange dimensions on the outlet of the unit such that the pressure in the receiving installation instructions that come packaged (or an air supply plenum adapter accessory, chamber of the airflow measuring apparatus with the unit. If a unit requires charging but if installed in accordance with the is no more than 0.5 inches of water higher the installation instructions do not specify a manufacturers installation instructions). charging procedure, then evacuate the unit than the surrounding test room ambient. In and add the nameplate refrigerant charge. lieu of installing a separate damper, use the Maximum outlet air damper box of Section 2.5 and Where the manufacturer’s installation diameter* of instructions contain two sets of refrigerant Cooling full-load air volume rate outlet 2.5.4.1 if it allows variable positioning. Also charging criteria, one for field installations (SCFM) plenum apply these steps to any conventional indoor and one for lab testing, use the field (inches) blower unit that creates a static pressure installation criteria. For third-party testing, within the receiving chamber of the airflow the test laboratory may consult with the ≤ 500 ...... 6 measuring apparatus that exceeds the test manufacturer about the refrigerant charging 501 to 700 ...... 7 room ambient pressure by more than 0.5 procedure and make any needed corrections 701 to 900 ...... 8 inches of water. so long as they do not contradict the 901 to 1100 ...... 9 * * * * * published installation instructions. The 1101 to 1400 ...... 10 manufacturer may specify an alternative 1401 to 1750 ...... 11 3. Testing Procedures charging criteria to the third-party laboratory * * * * * so long as the manufacturer thereafter revises *If the outlet plenum is rectangular, calculate 3.1.4.1.1 Cooling Full-Load Air Volume the published installation instructions its equivalent diameter using (4A)/P, where A Rate for Ducted Units. * * * is the area and P is the perimeter of the rec- accordingly. tangular plenum, and compare it to the listed * * * * * * * * * * maximum diameter. c. * * *

TABLE 2.—MINIMUM EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE FOR DUCTED SYSTEMS TESTED WITH AN INDOOR FAN INSTALLED

Minimum external resistance (3) (inches of water) Rated cooling (1) or heating (2) capacity (Btu/h) All other Small-duct, systems high-velocity systems (4, 5)

Up Thru 28,800 ...... 0.10 1.10

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 41340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—MINIMUM EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE FOR DUCTED SYSTEMS TESTED WITH AN INDOOR FAN INSTALLED— Continued

Minimum external resistance (3) (inches of water) Rated cooling (1) or heating (2) capacity (Btu/h) All other Small-duct, systems high-velocity systems (4, 5)

29,000 to 42,500 ...... 0.15 1.15 43,000 and Above ...... 0.20 1.20 (1) For air conditioners and heat pumps, the value cited by the manufacturer in published literature for the unit’s capacity when operated at the A or A2 Test conditions. (2) For heating-only heat pumps, the value the manufacturer cites in published literature for the unit’s capacity when operated at the H1 or H12 Test conditions. (3) For ducted units tested without an air filter installed, increase the applicable tabular value by 0.08 inches of water. (4) See Definition 1.35 to determine if the equipment qualifies as a small-duct, high-velocity system. (5) If a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus is used on the indoor side, limit the resistance to airflow on the inlet side of the indoor blower coil to a maximum value of 0.1 inches of water. Impose the balance of the airflow resistance on the supply side.

* * * * * optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state G1 two optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state 3.1.6 * * * (Note: In the first printing of Test and the cyclic I1 Test, to determine the C2 Test and the cyclic D2 Test, to determine ASHRAE Standard 37–2005, the second IP cooling-mode cyclic-degradation the cooling-mode cyclic-degradation c coefficient,C D. If the two optional tests are coefficient that only applies to on/off cycling equation for Qmi should read, c not conducted, assign C D the default value c 1097CA √P V’ .) * * * from high capacity, C D (k = 2). If the two n v n of 0.25. Table 5 specifies test conditions for c * * * * * these six tests. optional tests are not conducted, assign C D 3.2.3 Tests for a unit having a two- (k = 2) the same value as determined or * * * * * assigned for the low-capacity cyclic- capacity compressor. (See Definition 1.45.) d. If a two-capacity air conditioner or heat c a. Conduct four steady-state wet coil tests: pump locks out low-capacity operation at degradation coefficient, [or equivalently, C D (k = 1)]. the A2, B2, B1, and F1 Tests. Use the two higher outdoor temperatures, then use the

TABLE 5.—COOLING MODE TEST CONDITIONS FOR UNITS HAVING A TWO-CAPACITY COMPRESSOR

Air entering indoor Air entering outdoor unit temperature unit temperature ° ° Test description ( F) ( F) Compressor capacity Cooling air volume rate Wet Wet Dry bulb bulb Dry bulb bulb

(1) (2) A2 Test—required (steady, wet 80 67 95 75 High ...... Cooling Full-Load. coil). (1) (2) B2 Test—required (steady, wet 80 67 82 65 High ...... Cooling Full-Load. coil). (1) (3) B1 Test—required (steady, wet 80 67 82 65 Low ...... Cooling Minimum. coil). (1) (3) F1 Test—required (steady, wet 80 67 67 53.5 Low ...... Cooling Minimum. coil). (4) (3) G1 Test—optional (steady, dry- 80 67 ...... Low ...... Cooling Minimum. coil). (4) (5) I1 Test—optional (cyclic, dry- 80 67 ...... Low ...... coil). (4) (2) C2 Test—optional (steady, dry- 80 82 ...... High ...... Cooling Full-Load. coil). (4) (6) D2 Test—optional (cyclic, dry- 80 82 ...... High ...... coil). (1) The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil. (2) Defined in Section 3.1.4.1. (3) Defined in Section 3.1.4.2. (4) The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE recommends using an indoor air wet-bulb temperature of 57 °F or less. (5) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as meas- ured during the C1 Test. (6) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as meas- ured during the C2 Test.

3.2.4 Tests for a unit having a variable- Table 6 tests specified for a minimum the unit’s actual lowest cooling-mode speed compressor. * * * compressor speed, use the compressor speed operating speed. The manufacturer must also * * * * * specified by the manufacturer. The specify the compressor speed used for the c. For multiple-split air conditioners and manufacturer should prescribe a speed that Table 6 EV Test, a cooling-mode intermediate 1 3 heat pumps (only), the following procedures allows successful completion of the Table 6 compressor speed that falls within ⁄4 and ⁄4 supersede the above requirements: For all tests while deviating as little as possible from of the difference between the tested

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41341

maximum and minimum cooling-mode yield the highest EER for the given EV Test speeds. The manufacturer should prescribe conditions. an intermediate speed that is expected to

TABLE 6.—COOLING MODE TEST CONDITION FOR UNITS HAVING A VARIABLE-SPEED COMPRESSOR

Air entering indoor Air entering outdoor unit temperature unit temperature ° ° Test description ( F) ( F) Compressor speed Cooling air volume rate Wet Wet Dry bulb bulb Dry bulb bulb

(1) (2) (3) A2 Test—required (steady, wet coil) ...... 80 67 95 75 Maximum ...... Cooling Full-Load. (1) (2) (3) B2 Test—required (steady—wet coil) ...... 80 67 82 65 Maximum ...... Cooling Full-Load. (1) (4) EV Test—required (steady, wet coil) ...... 80 67 87 69 Intermediate ...... Cooling Intermediate. (1) (5) B1 Test—required (steady, wet coil) ...... 80 67 82 65 Minimum ...... Cooling Minimum. (1) (5) F1 Test—required (steady, wet coil) ...... 80 67 67 53 .5 Minimum ...... Cooling Minimum. (6) 6 (5) G1 Test —optional (steady, dry-coil) ...... 80 ( ) 67 ...... Minimum ...... Cooling Minimum. (6) 6 (7) I1 Test —optional (cyclic, dry-coil) ...... 80 ( ) 67 ...... Minimum ...... (1)The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil. (2)Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit’s controls. (3)Defined in Section 3.1.4.1. (4)Defined in Section 3.1.4.3. (5)Defined in Section 3.1.4.2. (6)The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE recommends using an indoor air wet bulb temperature of 57 °F or less. (7)Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure difference or velocity pressure as measured during the G1 Test.

* * * * * 3.5 Test procedures for the optional a minimum of two complete OFF/ON 3.4 Test procedures for the optional cyclic dry-coil cooling-mode tests (the D, D1, compressor cycles, determine the overall steady-state dry-coil cooling-mode tests (the D2, and I1 Tests). cooling delivered and total electrical energy C, C1, C2, and G1 Tests). * * * * * consumption during any subsequent data e. For consecutive compressor OFF/ON collection interval where the test tolerances * * * * * cycles, evaluate whether the below criterion given in Table 8 and the below criterion for for repeatable results is met. After completing repeatable results is satisfied.

For the above criterion, m represents the default value for two-capacity units cycling and Low Temperature Test (H31) if both of cycle number and G, ecyc,dry, and Dtcyc,dry are at high capacity, however, is the low-capacity the following conditions exist: c c c defined later in this same section. If coefficient, i.e., C D (k=2) =C D. Evaluate C D 1. Knowledge of the heat pump’s capacity available, use electric resistance heaters (see using the above results and those from the and electrical power at low compressor Section 2.1) to minimize the variation in the section 3.4 dry-coil steady-state test.* * * capacity for outdoor temperatures of 37 °F inlet air temperature. * * * * * and less is needed to complete the section * * * * * 3.6.3 Tests for a heat pump having a two- 4.2.3 seasonal performance calculations, and 3.5.3 Cooling-mode cyclic-degradation capacity compressor (see Definition 1.45), 2. The heat pump’s controls allow low- coefficient calculation. Use the two optional including two-capacity, northern heat pumps capacity operation at outdoor temperatures of dry-coil tests to determine the cooling-mode (see Definition 1.46). a. Conduct one 37 °F and less. c cyclic-degradation coefficient, C D. Append Maximum Temperature Test (H01), two High If the above two conditions are met, an ‘‘(k=2)’’ to the coefficient if it corresponds to Temperature Tests (H12 and H11), one Frost alternative to conducting the H21 Frost a two-capacity unit cycling at high capacity. Accumulation Test (H22), and one Low Accumulation is to use the following If the two optional tests are not conducted, Temperature Test (H32). Conduct an equations to approximate the capacity and c assign C D the default value of 0.25. The additional Frost Accumulation Test (H21) electrical power:

k=1 Determine the quantities Q˙ h (47) and Section 3.10. b. Conduct the optional value of 0.25. If a two-capacity heat pump k=1 E˙ h (47) from the H11 Test and evaluate Maximum Temperature Cyclic Test (H0C1) to locks out low capacity operation at lower them according to Section 3.7. Determine the determine the heating-mode cyclic- outdoor temperatures, conduct the optional k=1 k=1 h quantities Q˙ h (17)and E˙ h (17) from the degradation coefficient, C D. If this optional High Temperature Cyclic Test (H1C2) to h H31 Test and evaluate them according to test is not conducted, assign C D the default determine the high-capacity heating-mode

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 EP20jy06.041 EP20JY06.001 41342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

h h cyclic-degradation coefficient, C D (k=2). If as determined or assigned for the low- [or equivalently, C D (k=1)]. Table 11 h this optional test at high capacity is not capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient, C D specifies test conditions for these nine tests. h conducted, assign C D (k=2) the same value

TABLE 11.—HEATING MODE TEST CONDITIONS FOR UNITS HAVING A TWO-CAPACITY COMPRESSOR

Air entering indoor Air entering outdoor unit temperature unit temperature ° ° Test description ( F) ( F) Compressor capacity Heating air volume rate Wet Wet Dry bulb bulb Dry bulb bulb

(max) (1) H01 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 60 62 56 .5 Low ...... Heating Minimum. (max) (2) H0C1 Test (optional, cyclic) ...... 70 60 62 56 .5 Low ...... (max) (3) H12 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 60 47 43 High...... Heating Full-Load. (max) (4) H1C2 Test (optional, cyclic) ...... 70 60 47 43 High...... (max) (1) H11 Test (required) ...... 70 60 47 43 Low...... Heating Minimum. (max) (3) H22 Test (required) ...... 70 60 35 33 High...... Heating Full-Load. (5, 6) (max) (3) H21 Test (required) ...... 70 60 35 33 Low...... Heating Minimum. (max) (3) H32 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 60 17 15 High...... Heating Full-Load. (5) (max) (1) H31 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 60 17 15 Low...... Heating Minimum. (1) Defined in Section 3.1.4.5. (2) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured during the H01 Test. (3) Defined in Section 3.1.4.4. (4) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured during the H12 Test. (5) Required only if the heat pump’s performance when operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor temperatures less than 37 °F is needed to complete the Section 4.2.3 HSPF calculations. h h (6) If table note #5 applies, the Section 3.6.3 equations for Q˙ k=1 (35) and E˙ k=1 (17) may be used in lieu of conducting the H21 Test.

3.6.4 Tests for a heat pump having a compressor speed specified by the H2V Test, a heating-mode intermediate variable-speed compressor. manufacturer. The manufacturer should compressor speed that falls within 1⁄4 and 3⁄4 * * * * * prescribe a speed that allows successful of the difference between the tested completion of the Table 12 tests while maximum and minimum heating-mode c. For multiple-split heat pumps (only), the deviating as little as possible from the heat speeds. The manufacturer should prescribe following procedures supersede the above pump’s actual lowest heating-mode operating an intermediate speed that is expected to requirements: For all Table 12 tests specified speed. The manufacturer must also specify yield the highest COP for the given H2V Test for a minimum compressor speed, use the the compressor speed used for the Table 12 conditions.

TABLE 12.—HEATING MODE TEST CONDITION FOR UNITS HAVING A VARIABLE-SPEED COMPRESSOR

Air entering indoor Air entering outdoor unit temperature unit temperature ° ° Test description ( F) ( F) Compressor speed Heating air volume rate Wet Wet Dry bulb bulb Dry bulb bulb

H01 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 (max) 60 62 56.5 Minimum...... Heating Minimum (1) (max) 2 H0C1 Test (optional, steady) ...... 70 60 62 56.5 Minimum...... ( ) (max) (3) (4) H12 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 60 47 43 Maximum ...... Heating Full-Load (max) (1) H11 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 60 47 43 Minimum...... Heating Minimum (max) (5) H1N Test (optional, steady) ...... 70 60 47 43 Cooling Mode Max- Heating Nominal imum. (max) (3) (4) H22 Test (optional) ...... 70 60 35 33 Maximum ...... Heating Full-Load (max) (6) H2V Test ...... 70 60 35 33 Intermediate...... Heating Intermediate (max) (3) (4) H32 Test (required, steady) ...... 70 60 17 15 Maximum ...... Heating Full-Load (1) Defined in Section 3.1.4.5. (2) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during an ON period at the same pressure or velocity as meas- ured during the H01 Test. (3) Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit’s controls when heating. (4) Defined in Section 3.1.4.4. (5) Defined in Section 3.1.4.7. (6) Defined in Section 3.1.4.6.

* * * * * 3.8 Test procedures for the optional same test conditions to determine the 3.7 a. * * * cyclic heating mode tests (the H0C1, H1C, heating-mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, h b. Calculate indoor-side total heating H1C1 and H1C2 Tests). C D. Add ‘‘(k=2)’’ to the coefficient if it capacity as specified in sections 7.3.4.1 and * * * * * corresponds to a two-capacity unit cycling at 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 3.8.1 Heating mode cyclic degradation high capacity. If the optional test is not h (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). coefficient calculation. Use the results from conducted, assign C D the default value of *** the optional cyclic test and the required steady-state test that were conducted at the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:33 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules 41343

0.25. The default value for two-capacity units see § 430.22)) at equal intervals that span 10 a. * * * Otherwise, conduct the cycling at high capacity, however, is the low- minutes or less. (Note: In the first printing of calibration tests according to ASHRAE h h capacity coefficient, i.e., C D(k = 2) = C D. ASHRAE Standard 37–2005, the second IP Standard 23–05 (incorporated by reference, *** equation for Qmi should read: see § 430.22), ASHRAE Standard 41.9–00 * * * * * (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22), and 3.9 * * * ′ 1097CAnVn P v .)*** section 7.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 c. The official test period begins when the (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). preliminary test period ends, at defrost * * * * * b. Calculate space cooling and space termination. The official test period ends at 3.9.1 Average space heating capacity and heating capacities using the compressor the termination of the next occurring electrical power calculations. calibration method measurements as automatic defrost cycle. When testing a heat a. * * * pump that uses a time-adaptive defrost specified in section 7.4.5 and 7.4.6 To account for the effect of duct loses, respectively, of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 control system (see Definition 1.42), adjust Qk (35) in accordance with section h (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). however, manually initiate the defrost cycle 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05. that ends the official test period at the instant 3.11.3 If using the Refrigerant-Enthalpy indicated by instructions provided by the * * * * * Method as the secondary test method. manufacturer. If the heat pump has not 3.11.1.3 Official test. Conduct this secondary method according to undergone a defrost after 12 hours, * * * * * section 7.5 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 immediately conclude the test and use the b. For space cooling tests, calculate (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). results from the full 12-hour period to capacity from the outdoor air-enthalpy Calculate space cooling and heating calculate the average space heating capacity measurements as specified in section 7.3.3.2 capacities using the refrigerant-enthalpy and average electrical power consumption. of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 (incorporated by method measurements as specified in For the H21 Test, use a maximum official test reference, see § 430.22). Calculate heating sections 7.5.4 and 7.5.5, respectively, of the period of 6 hours instead of 12 hours. For capacity based on outdoor air-enthalpy same ASHRAE Standard. heat pumps that turn the indoor fan off measurements as specified in section 7.3.4.2 during the defrost cycle, take steps to cease of the same ASHRAE Standard. Adjust 4. Calculations of Seasonal Performance forced airflow through the indoor coil and outdoor-side capacities according to section Descriptors block the outlet duct whenever the heat 7.3.3.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 pump’s controls cycle off the indoor fan. If (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22) to * * * * * it is installed, use the outlet damper box account for line losses when testing split 4.1.3 SEER calculations for an air described in section 2.5.4.1 to affect the systems. Do not correct the average electrical conditioner or heat pump having a two- blocked outlet duct. power measurement as described in section capacity compressor. Calculate SEER using * * * * * 8.6.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37–05 Equation 4.1–1. Evaluate the space cooling k=1 f. * * * Sample measurements used in (incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). capacity, Q c (Tj) , and electrical power k=1 calculating the air volume rate (refer to 3.11.2 If using the Compressor consumption, E c (Tj) , of the test unit when sections 7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2 of ASHRAE Calibration Method as the secondary test operating at low compressor capacity and Standard 37–05 (incorporated by reference, method. outdoor temperature Tj using,

k=1 k=1 c k=2 k=2 c where Q c (82) and E c (82) are PLFj = 1 ¥C D (k = 2) . [1 ¥ X (Tj)], the and E c (Tj). Use C D (k=2) as determined k=1 determined from the B1 Test, Q c (67) and part load factor, dimensionless. in sections 3.2.3 and 3.5.3. Ek=1 (67) and Ek=1 (67) are determined from c c Obtain the fraction bin hours for the * * * * * the F1 Test, and all are calculated as specified cooling season, in section 3.3. Evaluate the space cooling 4.1.4.2 *** k=2 capacity, Q c (Tj), and electrical power For multiple-split air conditioners and heat k=2 n consumption, E c (Tj), of the test unit when j , pumps (only), the following procedures operating at high compressor capacity and N supersede the above requirements for k=i outdoor temperature Tj using, calculating EER (Tj). For each temperature from Table 16. Use Equations 4.1.3–3 and bin where T1 < Tj < Tv, * * * * * k=2 4.1.3.3 * * * 4.1.3–4, respectively, to evaluate Q c(Tj)

EERkv==() T− EERk 1 () T EERki==() T=+ EERk 1 () T v 1 ⋅−⋅()TT j 1 − j 1 TTv 1

For each temperature bin where Tv ≤ Tj < T2,

EERkkv==2 () T− EER () T EERki==() T=+ EERkv () T 2 v ⋅−⋅()TT j v − jv TT2 v

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 EP20JY06.002 EP20JY06.003 EP20JY06.004 EP20JY06.040 EP20JY06.005 EP20JY06.006 41344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Proposed Rules

′ * * * * * temperature cut-out factor, d (Tj), using For multiple-split air conditioners and heat 4.2.3.3 * * * . Equation 4.2.3–3. pumps (only), the following procedures ¥ h ¥ k=2 j PLFj = 1 C D (k = 2) · [1 X (T )]. * * * * * supersede the above requirements for h k=i Use C D (k = 2) as determined in sections 4.2.4.2 * * * calculating COP h (Tj). For each temperature 3.6.3 and 3.8.1. Determine the low bin where T3 > Tj > Tvh,

COPk=v () T− COPk=1 () T COPk=i () T= COPk=1 () T + h vh h 3 ⋅−()T TT". h jh3 − j 3 TTvh 3

For each temperature bin where Tvh ≥ Tj > T4, * * * * *

COPk==2 () T− COPkv ( T ) COPki==() T=+ COPkv ( T ) h 4 h vh ⋅(T −⋅T )’’ h jhvh − jjvh TT4 vh

* * * * * model of furnace, the certification report performance factor is based on an 6. Section 430.62 is amended in subpart F shall include the product class (as installation that includes a particular by revising paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) to denoted in § 430.32, manufacturer’s model of furnace, the certification report read as follows: name, private labeler’s name (if shall include the product class (as § 430.62 Submission of data. applicable) and manufacturer’s model denoted in § 430.32), manufacturer’s number of the furnace. name, private labeler’s name (if (a) * * * (ii) Central air conditioning heat applicable) and manufacturer’s model (4) * * * pumps, the seasonal energy efficiency number of the furnace. (i) Central air conditioners, the ratio and heating seasonal performance seasonal energy efficiency ratio. For * * * * * factor. For central air conditioner heat central air conditioners whose seasonal [FR Doc. 06–6320 Filed 7–19–06; 8:45 am] pumps whose seasonal energy efficiency energy efficiency ratio is based on an BILLING CODE 6450–01–P ratio and/or heating seasonal installation that includes a particular

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:55 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYP2.SGM 20JYP2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL_2 EP20JY06.007 EP20JY06.008 i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 139 Thursday, July 20, 2006

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING JULY

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month, the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 110...... 40003 Presidential Documents 3 CFR 727...... 40880 Proclamations: Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proposed Rules: 7758 (See 8033)...... 38255 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 20...... 37862 8033...... 38255 32...... 37862 Other Services 8034...... 38509 430...... 41320 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 8035...... 40383 431...... 38799 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 8036...... 41091 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 Executive Orders: 11 CFR TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 13348 (See Notice of July 18, 2006) ...... 41093 104...... 38513 13381 (Amended by ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 13408) ...... 37807 12 CFR World Wide Web 13408...... 37807 201...... 39520 13409...... 38511 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 915...... 40643 Administrative Orders: is located at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html Proposed Rules: Presidential 41...... 40786 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public Determinations: 222...... 40786 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: No. 2006-17 of June 308...... 40938 http://www.archives. gov/federallregister/ 30, 2006 ...... 39511 328...... 40440 E-mail Notices: 334...... 40786 Notice of July 18, 364...... 40786 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 2006 ...... 41093 563...... 37862 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 563b...... 41179 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 5 CFR 571...... 40786 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 534...... 38753 575...... 41179 PDF links to the full text of each document. 724...... 41095 615...... 39235 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Proposed Rules: 717...... 40786 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 1630...... 40034 1750...... 39399 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 1651...... 40034 1653...... 40034 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 14 CFR 1690...... 40034 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 23 ...... 39203, 41099, 41101, To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 7 CFR 41104 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 210...... 39513 25...... 38513, 40648 the instructions. 215...... 39513 39 ...... 37980, 38053, 38054, FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 220...... 39513 38059, 38062, 38515, 38979, respond to specific inquiries. 225...... 39513 39521, 40385, 40387, 40389, 226...... 39513 40391, 40886, 40888, 41109, Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 235...... 39513 41113, 41116, 41118, 41121 Federal Register system to: [email protected] 301...... 40875, 40879 71 ...... 38516, 40394, 40651, The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documentsor 319...... 40875 40652, 40653 regulations. 625...... 38053 91...... 40003 922...... 40637 97 ...... 38064, 39522, 39523 121...... 38517, 40003 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, JULY 948...... 40639 1402...... 40641 125...... 40003 37807–38052...... 3 1900...... 38979 135...... 40003 38053–38258...... 5 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 38259–38510...... 6 52...... 39017 23...... 38539, 40443 38511–38752...... 7 205...... 37854, 40624 25 ...... 38539, 38540, 38541, 38542, 39235 38753–38978...... 10 319...... 38302 457...... 40194 33...... 40675, 41184 38979–39202...... 11 916...... 38115 39 ...... 37868, 38304, 38311, 39203–39510...... 12 917...... 38115 39020, 39023, 39025, 39237, 39511–40002...... 13 925...... 39019 39242, 39244, 39593, 39595, 40003–40382...... 14 944...... 39019 39597, 39600, 40940, 40942, 40383–40636...... 17 1421...... 37857 40945, 40948 40637–40874...... 18 71 ...... 39247, 40444, 40445, 40875–41090...... 19 9 CFR 40447, 40448 41091–41344...... 20 94...... 38259 91...... 38118, 38542 121 ...... 38540, 38541, 38542 10 CFR 125...... 38542 72...... 39520 129 ...... 38540, 38541, 38542

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\20JYCU.LOC 20JYCU wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCU ii Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Reader Aids

15 CFR 26 CFR 155...... 39206 1068...... 39154 700...... 39526 1 ...... 38074, 38261, 38262, 156...... 39206 Proposed Rules: 157...... 39206 Proposed Rules: 39548 52 ...... 38824, 38831, 39030, 740...... 38313, 39603 301...... 38262, 38985 160...... 39206 39251, 39259, 39618, 40048, 164...... 39206 742...... 38313, 39603 Proposed Rules: 40951, 40952 165 ...... 37822, 37824, 37825, 744...... 38313 1 ...... 38322, 38323, 39604, 63...... 40679 37827, 37829, 37831, 37833, 748...... 38313, 39603 40458 70...... 38831 37835, 37837, 38087, 38089, 754...... 39603 301...... 38323 81...... 39618, 40952 38526, 38528, 38530, 38532, 764...... 38321 602...... 38323 82...... 38325, 41192 766...... 38321 38534, 39206, 39565, 39567, 122...... 37880 772...... 39603 27 CFR 40918, 40920 141...... 40828 9 ...... 40397, 40400, 40401 Proposed Rules: 180...... 38125, 40051 16 CFR 100 ...... 38561, 39609, 39611, 300...... 39032 Proposed Rules: 1031...... 38754 9 ...... 37870, 40458, 40465 39613 412...... 37880 Proposed Rules: 117...... 39028 721...... 39035 311...... 38321 28 CFR 34 CFR 42 CFR 681...... 40786 58...... 38076 1119...... 39248 300...... 41084 413...... 38264 Proposed Rules: 668...... 37990 1500...... 39249 511...... 38543 435...... 39214 1507...... 39249 674...... 37990 436...... 39214 29 CFR 675...... 37990 440...... 39214 17 CFR 676...... 37990 1910...... 38085 441...... 39214 682...... 37990 1...... 37809 1915...... 38085 457...... 39214 685...... 37990 15...... 37809 1926...... 38085, 41127 483...... 39214 690...... 37990 16...... 37809 1928...... 41127 691...... 37990 43 CFR 17...... 37809 2700...... 40654 18...... 37809 4022...... 40011 36 CFR 4100...... 39402 19...... 37809 4044...... 40011 21...... 37809 Proposed Rules: 44 CFR 4281...... 39205 30...... 40395 1193...... 38324 64...... 38780, 41172 37...... 37809 30 CFR 1194...... 38324 67...... 40925 41...... 39534 1195...... 38563 250...... 40904 206...... 40025 240...... 39534 251...... 40904 37 CFR Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 280...... 40904 67 ...... 40955, 40978, 40980 38...... 38740 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 240...... 40866 1...... 38808 45 CFR 206...... 38545 18 CFR 210...... 38545 38 CFR Proposed Rules: 1356...... 40346 284...... 38066 216...... 38545 Proposed Rules: 218...... 38545 Proposed Rules: 3...... 39616 250...... 37874 46 CFR 35...... 39251 39 CFR Proposed Rules: 37...... 39251 31 CFR 401...... 39629 366...... 39603 111...... 38537, 38966 103...... 39554 367...... 39603 Ch. V...... 39708 40 CFR 47 CFR 368...... 39603 369...... 39603 Proposed Rules: 51...... 40420 1 ...... 38091, 38781, 39592 375...... 39603 103...... 39606 52 ...... 38770, 38773, 38776, 15...... 39229 38990, 38993, 38995, 38997, 22...... 38091 803...... 38692 32 CFR 804...... 38692 39001, 39570, 39572, 39574, 24...... 38091 805...... 38692 43...... 38760 40014, 40023, 40922, 41162 54...... 38266, 38781 50...... 38760 60...... 38482, 39154 64...... 38091, 38268 19 CFR 54...... 40656 63...... 39579, 40316 73 ...... 39231, 39232, 39233, Proposed Rules: 78...... 40656 70...... 38776, 38997 40927 4...... 40035 Proposed Rules: 81 ...... 39001, 39574, 40023 Proposed Rules: 122...... 40035 310...... 40282 82...... 41163 1...... 38564 85...... 39154 2...... 38564 20 CFR 33 CFR 89...... 39154 4...... 38564 422...... 38066 1...... 39206 93...... 40420 6...... 38564 64...... 39206 94...... 39154 7...... 38564 21 CFR 72...... 39206 174...... 40427, 40431 9...... 38564 73...... 41125 81...... 39206 180...... 39211 11...... 38564 520 ...... 38071, 38072, 39203, 89...... 39206 260...... 40354 13...... 38564 39543, 40010 100 ...... 38517, 38520, 38522, 261...... 40254 15...... 38564 522 ...... 39204, 39544, 39545, 39206, 39561, 39563, 40012, 262...... 40254 17...... 38564 39547 40914 264...... 40254 18...... 38564 524...... 38073, 38261 101...... 39206 265...... 40254 20...... 38564 526...... 39544 104...... 39206 266...... 40254 22...... 38564 556...... 39545 117 ...... 38524, 38988, 38989, 267...... 40254 24...... 38564 558...... 39204 38990, 39563, 40418, 40916 268...... 40254 25...... 38564 120...... 39206 270...... 40254 27...... 38564 23 CFR 135...... 39206 271...... 40254 52...... 38564 1350...... 40891 146...... 39206 273...... 40254 53...... 38564 148...... 39206 279...... 40254 54...... 38564, 38832 25 CFR 151...... 39206 281...... 39213 63...... 38564 Proposed Rules: 153...... 39206 1039...... 39154 64...... 38564 171...... 40450 154...... 39206 1065...... 39154 68...... 38564

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\20JYCU.LOC 20JYCU wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCU Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Reader Aids iii

73 ...... 38564, 39278, 40981 52...... 38238 Proposed Rules: 223...... 38270 74...... 38564 Ch. 2 ...... 39004 2...... 40681 226...... 38277 76...... 38564 208...... 39004 7...... 40681 300...... 38297, 38298 78...... 38564 212...... 39005 12...... 40681 622...... 38797, 41177 25...... 40681 79...... 38564 216...... 39006 648...... 40027, 40436 52...... 40681 90...... 38564 660...... 37839, 38111 95...... 38564 219...... 39008 49 CFR 679 ...... 38797, 39015, 40028, 97...... 38564 225 ...... 39004, 39005, 39008 40029, 40934, 40935, 40936, 101...... 38564 239...... 39009, 39010 574...... 39233 41178 252 ...... 39004, 39005, 39008, Proposed Rules: 48 CFR 39010 571...... 40057 680 ...... 38112, 38298, 40030 Ch. 1...... 38238, 38250 253...... 39004 Proposed Rules: 50 CFR 2...... 38238 652...... 41177 17 ...... 37881, 38593, 40588 7...... 38238 904...... 40880 17...... 40657 300...... 39642 18...... 38247 952...... 40880 91...... 39011 648...... 38352 34...... 38238 216...... 40928 679...... 39046

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\20JYCU.LOC 20JYCU wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCU iv Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Reader Aids

REMINDERS California; comments due by vending machines; Ambulance services fee The items in this list were 7-24-06; published 5-23- meeting and framework schedule; payment editorially compiled as an aid 06 [FR 06-04747] document availability; policies revisions; to Federal Register users. Spearmint oil produced in Far comments due by 7-27- comments due by 7-25- Inclusion or exclusion from West; comments due by 7- 06; published 6-28-06 06; published 5-26-06 [FR this list has no legal 25-06; published 5-26-06 [FR 06-05838] E6-07929] significance. [FR E6-08105] Renewable energy HEALTH AND HUMAN AGRICULTURE production incentives; SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT comments due by 7-26- Food and Drug RULES GOING INTO 06; published 6-26-06 [FR Administration Animal and Plant Health EFFECT JULY 20, 2006 E6-09998] Inspection Service Biological Products: Weatherization Assistance Blood vessels recovered Plant-related quarantine, COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Program for low-income with organs and intended domestic: Economic Analysis Bureau persons; renewable for use in organ International services surveys: Emerald ash borer; energy technologies and transplantation; comments BE-577; direct investment comments due by 7-24- systems; comments due due by 7-26-06; published abroad; transactions of 06; published 5-24-06 [FR by 7-24-06; published 6- 5-12-06 [FR 06-04369] U.S. reporter with foreign 06-04812] 22-06 [FR E6-09858] Biological products: affiliate; quarterly survey; Pine shoot beetle; ENVIRONMENTAL Blood vessels recovered published 6-20-06 comments due by 7-24- PROTECTION AGENCY with organs and intended DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 06; published 5-24-06 [FR Air programs; State authority for use in organ 06-04810] Civilian health and medical delegations: transplantation; comments program of uniformed Plant-related quarantine, due by 7-26-06; published services (CHAMPUS): Arizona, California, and foreign: Nevada; comments due 5-12-06 [FR 06-04370] National Institutes of Health- Fruits and vegetables import by 7-28-06; published 6- HEALTH AND HUMAN sponsored clinical trials; regulations; revision; 28-06 [FR 06-05841] SERVICES DEPARTMENT coverage methodology; comments due by 7-26- Acquisition regulations; published 6-20-06 Air quality implementation 06; published 4-27-06 [FR plans; approval and comments due by 7-25-06; HEALTH AND HUMAN 06-03897] promulgation; various published 5-26-06 [FR 06- SERVICES DEPARTMENT Fruits and vegetables States: 04763] Food and Drug imported in passenger Alabama; comments due by HEALTH AND HUMAN Administration baggage; phytosanitary SERVICES DEPARTMENT Color additives: 7-24-06; published 6-22- certificates; comments due 06 [FR 06-05597] Health Resources and Mica-based pearlescent by 7-24-06; published 5- Kansas; comments due by Services Administration pigments; published 7-20- 24-06 [FR E6-07923] Biological Products: 06 7-26-06; published 6-26- COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 06 [FR 06-05623] Blood vessels recovered HOMELAND SECURITY International Trade with organs and intended DEPARTMENT Missouri; comments due by Administration for use in organ Coast Guard 7-26-06; published 6-26- Antidumping and 06 [FR 06-05625] transplantation; comments Ports and waterways safety; due by 7-26-06; published countervailing duties: Protection of human subjects: regulated navigation areas, 5-12-06 [FR 06-04369] Emergency relief work safety zones, security Pesticides research involving Biological products: supplies; importation intentional exposure— zones, etc.: Blood vessels recovered procedures; comments Buffalo Outer Harbor, Nursing women and with organs and intended due by 7-24-06; published Buffalo, NY; published 7- nursing infants; for use in organ 6-22-06 [FR 06-05612] 19-06 additional protections; transplantation; comments LABOR DEPARTMENT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT comments due by 7-24- due by 7-26-06; published Occupational Safety and National Oceanic and 06; published 6-23-06 5-12-06 [FR 06-04370] [FR 06-05649] Health Administration Atmospheric Administration HOMELAND SECURITY Construction and occupational Fishery conservation and Nursing women and DEPARTMENT safety and health standards: management: nursing infants; Coast Guard additional protections; Roll-over protective Alaska; fisheries of Drawbridge operations: comments due by 7-24- structures; corrections and Exclusive Economic Iowa, et al.; comments due 06; published 6-23-06 technical amendments; Zone— by 7-24-06; published 5- [FR 06-05648] published 7-20-06 25-06 [FR 06-04877] Gulf of Alaska groundfish; Superfund program: PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT comments due by 7-24- New York; comments due National oil and hazardous OFFICE 06; published 6-7-06 by 7-24-06; published 5- substances contingency Prevailing rate systems; [FR 06-05104] 24-06 [FR E6-07861] plan priorities list; published 6-20-06 HOMELAND SECURITY Caribbean, Gulf, and South comments due by 7-24- STATE DEPARTMENT Atlantic fisheries— DEPARTMENT Acquisition regulations: 06; published 6-22-06 [FR Snapper-grouper; Federal Emergency Miscellaneous amendments E6-09748] comments due by 7-24- Management Agency Correction; published 7- Water pollution control: National Flood Insurance 06; published 6-9-06 National Pollutant Discharge 20-06 [FR E6-09028] Program: Elimination System— Flood insurance claims; ENERGY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS DUE NEXT Water transfers; appeals process; WEEK Energy Efficiency and comments due by 7-24- comments due by 7-25- Renewable Energy Office 06; published 6-7-06 06; published 5-26-06 [FR AGRICULTURE Energy conservation: [FR E6-08814] E6-08180] DEPARTMENT Commercial and industrial HEALTH AND HUMAN HOMELAND SECURITY Agricultural Marketing equipment, energy SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Service efficiency program— Centers for Medicare & U.S. Citizenship and Raisins produced from grapes Refrigerated bottled or Medicaid Services Immigration Services grown in— canned beverage Medicare: Immigration:

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\20JYCU.LOC 20JYCU wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCU Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / Reader Aids v

Premium Processing 06; published 5-25-06 [FR Boeing; comments due by 902 corporations; cross- Service— E6-07979] 7-24-06; published 6-8-06 reference; comments due Public notification PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT [FR E6-08901] by 7-24-06; published 4- procedures; changes; OFFICE Bombardier; comments due 25-06 [FR 06-03885] comments due by 7-24- Chief Human Capital Officers by 7-27-06; published 6- 06; published 5-23-06 Act; implementation: 27-06 [FR E6-10090] [FR 06-04754] Civilian workforce strategic McDonnell Douglas; LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS HOUSING AND URBAN management; comments due by 7-24- DEVELOPMENT enhancement and 06; published 6-8-06 [FR This is a continuing list of DEPARTMENT improvement; comments E6-08899] public bills from the current Mortgage and loan insurance due by 7-24-06; published Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.; session of Congress which programs: 5-23-06 [FR E6-07784] comments due by 7-24- have become Federal laws. It Puerto Rico; presentation of Pay administration: 06; published 6-22-06 [FR may be used in conjunction condominium legal Fair Labor Standards Act; E6-09845] with ‘‘PLUS’’ (Public Laws documents; FHA approval; revisions; comments due Airworthiness standards: Update Service) on 202–741– comments due by 7-24- by 7-25-06; published 5- Special conditions— 6043. This list is also available online at http:// 06; published 5-23-06 [FR 26-06 [FR 06-04886] Cessna Aircraft Co. Model www.archives.gov/federal- 06-04746] POSTAL SERVICE 510 airplane; comments register/laws.html. HOUSING AND URBAN Postage meters: due by 7-24-06; DEVELOPMENT Manufacture and distribution; published 6-23-06 [FR The text of laws is not DEPARTMENT authorization— 06-05636] published in the Federal Federal Housing Enterprise Postage Evidencing Cessna Aircraft Co. Model Register but may be ordered Oversight Office Systems; revisions to 510 airplane; correction; in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual Risk-based capital: requirements; comments comments due by 7-24- pamphlet) form from the Test methodology and due by 7-27-06; 06; published 7-17-06 Superintendent of Documents, specifications; technical published 6-27-06 [FR [FR E6-11153] U.S. Government Printing amendments; comments 06-05675] TRANSPORTATION Office, Washington, DC 20402 due by 7-26-06; published SMALL BUSINESS DEPARTMENT (phone, 202–512–1808). The 6-26-06 [FR 06-05330] ADMINISTRATION Federal Highway text will also be made available on the Internet from INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Business loans: Administration GPO Access at http:// Premier Certified Lenders Engineering and traffic Fish and Wildlife Service www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/ Program; loan loss operations: Endangered and threatened reserve fund pilot index.html. Some laws may species: Design-build contracting; not yet be available. programs; comments due comments due by 7-24- Critical habitat by 7-25-06; published 5- designations— 06; published 5-25-06 [FR H.R. 889/P.L. 109–241 26-06 [FR E6-08039] E6-08002] Mountain yellow-legged STATE DEPARTMENT Coast Guard and Maritime frog; comments due by TRANSPORTATION Transportation Act of 2006 Visas; immigrant DEPARTMENT 7-24-06; published 7-3- documentation: (July 11, 2006; 120 Stat. 516) 06 [FR E6-10458] National Highway Traffic Intercountry adoption; Hague Safety Administration Last List July 10, 2006 Findings on petitions, etc.— Convention adoption California brown pelican; cases; consular officer Motor vehicle safety 5-year review; procedures; comments standards: comments due by 7-24- due by 7-24-06; published Child restraint systems— Public Laws Electronic 06; published 5-24-06 6-22-06 [FR E6-09596] Exposed webbing; Notification Service [FR E6-07715] TRANSPORTATION minimum breaking (PENS) Endangered Species DEPARTMENT strength; comments due Convention: Individuals with disabilities: by 7-24-06; published 6-7-06 [FR E6-08727] Regulations revised; Transportation accessibility PENS is a free electronic mail comments due by 7-28- standards; modifications; TREASURY DEPARTMENT notification service of newly 06; published 4-19-06 [FR comments due by 7-28- Internal Revenue Service enacted public laws. To 06-03444] subscribe, go to http:// 06; published 5-1-06 [FR Income taxes: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 06-04069] listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Life-nonlife consolidated publaws-l.html Drug Enforcement TRANSPORTATION returns; tacking rule Administration DEPARTMENT requirements; cross- Note: This service is strictly Schedules of controlled Federal Aviation reference; comments due for E-mail notification of new substances: Administration by 7-24-06; published 4- laws. The text of laws is not Schedule I controlled Airworthiness directives: 25-06 [FR 06-03883] available through this service. substances; positional Airbus; comments due by 7- Separate limitations PENS cannot respond to isomer definition; 24-06; published 5-23-06 application to dividends specific inquiries sent to this comments due by 7-24- [FR 06-04712] from noncontrolled section address.

VerDate Aug 31 2005 21:16 Jul 19, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\20JYCU.LOC 20JYCU wwhite on PROD1PC61 with FRCU