June 8, 2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Stark, Mahoning, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Technology Vectors will meet in closed session on June 7 and 8, 2006; at Strategic Analysis, Inc. (SAI), 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA. This meeting will continue to map the study's direction and begin discussion on what will be the Technology Vectors DoD will need for the 21st century. The mission of Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Review previous attempts by DoD to identify critical technologies in order to derive lessons that would help illuminate the current challenge. identify the National Security objectives for the 21st century and the operational missions that U.S. military will be called upon to support these objectives; identify new operational capabilities needed for the proposed missions; identify the critical science technology, and other related enablers of the desired capabilities; assess current S&T investment plans' relevance to the needed operational capabilities and enablers and recommend needed changes to the plans; identify mechanisms to accelerate and assure the transition of technology into U.S. military capabilities; and review and recommend changes as needed, the current processes by which national security objectives and needed operational capabilities are used to develop and prioritize science, technology, and other related enablers, and how those enablers are then developed. In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.

The Defense Science Board Task Force on VTOL/STOL will meet in closed session on June 21-22, 2006; at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. This meeting continues the task force's work and will consist FOUO and proprietary briefings on current technologies and programs. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the features and capabilities VTOL/STOL aircraft should have in order to support the nation's defense needs through at least the first half of the 21st century. In accordance with the Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORJ) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case: Steven Anthony Leadon, Ph.D., University of North Carolina: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Steven Anthony Leadon, Ph.D., former Professor of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, UNC, engaged in scientific misconduct while supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 CA40453-09 to 15. Specifically, PHS found that Dr. Landon engaged in scientific misconduct by falsifying DNA samples and constructing falsified figures for experiments done in his laboratory to support claimed findings of defects in a DNA repair process that involved rapid repair of DNA damage in the transcribed strand of active genes, included in four grant applications and in eight publications and one published manuscript, which were included as an Appendix to the Voluntary Exclusion Agreement entered into by Dr. Leadon and are as follows: Figures 1, 2, and 3 in the article by Gowen, L.C., Avrutskaya, A.V., Latour, A.M., Koller, B.H., & Leadon, S.A. ``BRCAI Required for Transcription-Coupled Repair of Oxidation DNA Damage.'' Science 281:109-1012, 1988. In grant application 2 R01 CA40453-14 (p. 9), this article was used as justification for proposed research on BRCA1 and related proteins that may be required for transcription-coupled DNA repair of oxidative DNA damage. Data from the research reported in this paper was also used as preliminary data (Figure 2, p. 16) to support proposed experiments on BRCA1. Figures 1A, 2A, and 3 in the article by Leadon, S.A. & Avrutskaya, A. ``Differential Involvement of the Human Mismatch Repair Proteins, hMLH1 and hMSH2 in Transcription-coupled Repair.'' Cancer Research 57:3784-3791, 1997. Figures 1 and 3 in the article by Leadon, S.A. & Avrutskaya, A.V. ``Requirement for DNA Mismatch Repair Proteins in the Transcription Coupled Repair of Thymine Glycols in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.'' Mutation Research 407:177-187, 1998. Figures 7B and 7C in the article by Cressman, V.L., Backlund, D.C., Avrutskaya, A.V., Leadon, S.A., & Koller, B.H. ``Growth retardation, DNA repair defects, and lack of spermatogenesis in BRCA1- deficient mice.'' Molecular and Cellular Biology 19:7061-7075, 1999. Figures 1 A-D, 3A, 3C, ajd 3D and graphs in the unpublished manuscript by Rauscher, F. J. III, Jensen, D.E., Patel, G., Fredericks, W.J., Schultz, D.C., Proctor, M., Sekido, Y., Minna, J., Chernova, T.A., Wilkinson, K.D., Avrutskaya, A.V., & Leadon, S.A. ``BRCA1-associated ubiquitin hydrolase required for transcription- coupled repair of oxidative DNA damage.'' Submitted to Science on May 16, 2001. In figure 4 in grant application 2 R01 CA40453-14 (pp. 17- 18), data from this unpublished manuscript was used regarding BAP1 defects in TCR. Figure 1A and 3A in the article by Cooper, P.K., Nouspikel, T., Clarkson, S.g., and Leadon, S.A., ``Defective transcription-coupled repair of oxidative base damage in Cockayne syndrome patients from XP group G,'' Science 275: 9907ndash993, 1997. In NIH grant application R01 CA40453-10A1, some of the same data for XPG or XP-G/CS cells from this Science article were included by Dr. Leadon as graphs (Figures 4 and 5, pp. 25-27) before the Science paper was published. Figure 1C, 2A and 2B in the article by LePage, F., Kwoh, E.E., Avrutskaya, A., Gentil, A., Leadon, S.A., Sarasin, A., & Cooper, P.K. ``Transcription-coupled repair of 8-oxoguanine: requirement for XPG, TFIIH, and CSB and implications for Cockayne Syndrome.'' Cell 101:159-171, 2000. Figure 7 in grant application 1 R01 CA092390-01. Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1 in the article by Leadon, S.A., Barbee, S.L., & Dunn, A.B. ``The yeast RAD2, but not RAD1, gene is involved in the transcription-coupled repair of thymine glycols.'' Mutation Research 337:169-178, 1995. Figure 6 in the article Nouspikel, T., Lalle, P., Leadon, S.A., Cooper, P.K., & Clarkson, S.g. ``A common mutational pattern in Cockayne syndrome patients from xeroderma pigmentosum group G: Implications for a second XPG function,'' Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 3116-3121, 1997. Dr. Leadon's position is that he did not engage in scientific misconduct. His position is that a systematic error was introduced into the experiments in question and he recognizes that it could have influenced or accounted for the results. Dr. Leadon states that he has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (Agreement) because he cannot sustain the significant financial burden of a legal proceeding to resolve the disagreements between his position and that of HHS. By entering into this Agreement, Dr. Leadon has voluntarily agreed: (1) To exclude himself from knowingly contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or knowing involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as ``covered transactions'' as defined in the debarment regulations at 45 CFR Part 76 for a period of five (5) years, beginning on May 10, 2006; (2) To exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited, to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as consultant for a period of five (5) years, beginning on May 10, 2006; and (3) To submit letters of retraction to the editors of the journals listed below within ten (10) business days from the effective date of this Agreement, stating as follows:

Notice is hereby given of the intent to fully approve the Minnesota Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (coastal nonpoint program) and of the availability of the draft Approval Decisions on conditions for the Minnesota coastal nonpoint program. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 16 U.S.C. 1455b, requires States and Territories with coastal zone management programs that have received approval under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to develop and implement coastal nonpoint programs. Coastal States and Territories were required to submit their coastal nonpoint programs to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval in July 1995. NOAA and EPA conditionally approved the Minnesota coastal nonpoint program on June 23, 2003. NOAA and EPA have drafted approval decisions describing how Minnesota has satisfied the conditions placed on its program and therefore has a fully approved coastal nonpoint program. NOAA and EPA are making the draft decisions for the Minnesota coastal nonpoint program available for a 30-day public comment period. If comments are received, NOAA and EPA will consider whether such comments are significant enough to affect the decision to fully approve the program. Copies of the draft Approval Decisions can be found on NOAA Web site at https://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/6217/findings.html or may be obtained upon request from: Helen Bass, Coastal Programs Division (N/ORM3), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910, phone (301) 713-3155, x175, e-mail Helen.Bass@noaa.gov

This rule proposes to revise and clarify requirements with respect to the distribution, management, and use of donated foods in the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition programs, the Nutrition Services Incentive Program, and by charitable institutions. Most significantly, it would establish specific requirements to ensure that school food authorities and other recipient agencies in child nutrition programs receive the value of all donated foods provided to food service management companies for use in providing school lunches and other meals. The latter requirements are proposed in response to an audit of the USDA Office of the Inspector General; the proposals relating to the Nutrition Services Incentive Program result from amendments to the Older Americans Act of 1965. This proposed rule would also include amended regulatory provisions using a plain language format, including the addition of new subparts, and several new sections under those subparts, in order to make them easier to understand.