51652 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices 

id. at 13–15. In Docket No. C2004–3, 

pleadings addressed fee levels for 

Stamped Stationery. Although those 

arguments were not germane to the 

jurisdictional issue, they appear, at least 

at first blush, to be somewhat 

problematic. Consequently, in 

suggesting that a creative pricing 

approach may be appropriate, the 

Commission hopes to focus interested 

persons on the challenge at hand and 

perhaps to temper rote reliance on any 

preconceived fee structures. 

The Commission’s observations may 

also have the salutary effect of 

encouraging discussion among 

interested parties concerning an 

acceptable fee structure. With the 

threshold issue resolved, this possibility 

would not appear to be an unobtainable 

goal. It may, however, prove to be 

elusive. This guidance simply reflects 

the Commission’s preliminary views. It 

is not intended to limit any interested 

persons’ option, and participants remain 

free to present evidence and argument 

as they wish. 

To facilitate discussions among 

interested persons the Commission will 

allow notices of intervention to be filed 

in this proceeding. Intervention, at this 

stage, will permit intervenors, including 

the Office of the Consumer Advocate, to 

participate in any pre-or post-filing 

conference the Postal Service may wish 

to convene. To the extent such 

conference(s) may be convened, any 

such discussions would be deemed 

privileged in any proceeding before the 

Commission. 

Sunset date. To ensure this docket 

proceeds in an orderly fashion, the 

Commission establishes a due date for 

the filing of a request of February 26, 

2007. Absent a request or other filing 

related thereto filed on or before that 

date, this docket will terminate and be 

considered withdrawn as of February 

26, 2007. 

Representation of the general public. 

In conformance with section 3624(a) of 

title 39, the Commission designates 

Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the 

Commission’s Office of the Consumer 

Advocate, to represent the interests of 

the general public in this proceeding. 

Pursuant to this designation, Ms. 

Dreifuss will direct the activities of 

Commission personnel assigned to 

assist her and, upon request, will supply 

their names for the record. Neither Ms. 

Dreifuss nor any of the assigned 

personnel will participate in or provide 

advice on any Commission decision in 

this proceeding. 

Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. MC2006–7 for the purpose of 

receiving a request from the Postal 

Service for a recommended decision 

establishing a classification and fee 

schedule for Stamped Stationery. 

2. The Commission will sit en banc in 

this proceeding. 

3. Notices of intervention are due no 

later than 28 days following the 

submission of the Postal Service 

Request. 

4. Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the 

Commission’s Office of the Consumer 

Advocate, is designated to represent the 

interests of the general public. 

5. The due date for filing a request to 

establish the Stamped Stationery 

classification in this proceeding is 

February 26, 2007. 

6. Absent a request or other filing 

related thereto filed on or before 

February 26, 2007, this docket will 

terminate and be considered withdrawn 

as of February 26, 2007. 

7. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: August 25, 2006. 

By the Commission. 

Steven W. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–14408 Filed 8–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 

No FEAR Act Notice 

On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted 

the ‘‘Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act 

of 2002,’’ which is now known as the 

No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act 

is to ‘‘require that Federal agencies be 

accountable for violations of 

antidiscrimination and whistleblower 

protection laws.’’ Public Law 107–174, 

Summary. In support of this purpose, 

Congress found that ‘‘agencies cannot be 

run effectively if those agencies practice 

or tolerate discrimination.’’ Public Law 

107–74, Title I, General Provisions, 

Section 101(1). 

The Act also requires this agency to 

provide this notice to Federal 

employees, former Federal employees 

and applicants for Federal employment 

to inform you of the rights and 

protections available to you under 

Federal antidiscrimination, 

whistleblower protection and retaliation 

laws. 

Antidiscrimination Laws 

A Federal agency cannot discriminate 

against an employee or applicant with 

respect to the terms, conditions or 

privileges of employment on the basis of 

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, 

age, disability, marital status or political 

affiliation. Discrimination on these 

bases is prohibited by one or more of the 

following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 

29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 

U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 

2000e–16. 

If you believe that you have been the 

victim of unlawful discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 

national origin or disability, you must 

contact an Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) counselor within 45 

calendar days of the alleged 

discriminatory action, or, in the case of 

a personnel action, within 45 calendar 

days of the effective date of the action, 

before you can file a formal complaint 

of discrimination with your agency. See, 

e.g., 29 CFR 1614. If you believe that 

you have been the victim of unlawful 

discrimination on the basis of age, you 

must either contact an EEO counselor as 

noted above or give notice of intent to 

sue to the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 

180 days of the alleged discriminatory 

action. If you are alleging discrimination 

based on marital status or political 

affiliation, you may file a written 

complaint with the U.S. Office of 

Special Counsel (OSC) (see contact 

information below). In the alternative 

(or in some cases, in addition), you may 

pursue a discrimination complaint by 

filing a grievance through your agency’s 

administrative or negotiated grievance 

procedures, if such procedures apply 

and are available. 

Whistleblower Protection Laws 

A Federal employee with authority to 

take, direct others to take, recommend 

or approve any personnel action must 

not use that authority to take or fail to 

take, or threaten to take or fail to take, 

a personnel action against an employee 

or applicant because of disclosure of 

information by that individual that is 

reasonably believed to evidence 

violations of law, rule or regulation; 

gross mismanagement, gross waste of 

funds; an abuse of authority; or a 

substantial and specific danger to public 

health or safety, unless disclosure of 

such information is specifically 

prohibited by law and such information 

is specifically required by Executive 

order to be kept secret in the interest of 

national defense or the conduct of 

foreign affairs. 

Retaliation against an employee or 

applicant for making a protected 

disclosure is prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 

2302(b)(8). If you believe that you have 

been the victim of whistleblower 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices 51653 

retaliation, you may file a written 

complaint (Form OSC–11) with the U.S. 

Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M 

Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 

20036–4505 or online through the OSC 

Web site http://www.osc.gov. 

Retaliation for Engaging in Protected 

Activity 

A Federal agency cannot retaliate 

against an employee or applicant 

because that individual exercises his or 

her rights under any of the Federal 

antidiscrimination or whistleblower 

protections laws listed above. If you 

believe that you are the victim of 

retaliation for engaging in protected 

activity, you must follow, as 

appropriate, the procedures described in 

the Antidiscrimination Laws and 

Whistleblower Protection Laws sections 

or, if applicable, the administrative or 

negotiated grievance procedures in 

order to pursue any legal remedy. 

Disciplinary Actions 

Under the existing laws, each agency 

retains the right, where appropriate, to 

discipline a Federal employee who has 

engaged in discriminatory or retaliatory 

conduct, up to and including removal. 

If OSC has initiated an investigation 

under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, 

according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies 

must seek approval from the Special 

Counsel to discipline employees for, 

among other activities, engaging in 

prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No 

FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits 

an agency to take unfounded 

disciplinary action against a Federal 

employee or to violate the procedural 

rights of a Federal employee who has 

been accused of discrimination. 

Additional Information 

For further information regarding the 

No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR 

724, as well as the appropriate offices 

within your agency (e.g., EEO/civil 

rights office, human resources office or 

legal office). Additional information 

regarding Federal antidiscrimination, 

whistleblower protection and retaliation 

laws can be found at the EEOC Web 

site—http://www.eeoc.gov and the OSC 

Web site—http://www.osc.gov. 

Existing Rights Unchanged 

Pursuant to section 205 of the No 

FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this 

notice creates, expands or reduces any 

rights otherwise available to any 

employee, former employee or applicant 

under the laws of the United States, 

including the provisions of law 

specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). 

Dated: August 24, 2006. 

Beatrice Ezerski, 

Secretary to the Board. 

[FR Doc. 06–7247 Filed 8–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7905–01–M 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[File No. 500–1] 

In the Matter of Amanda Company, 

Inc., American International Petroleum 

Corp., China Continental, Inc., Com21, 

Inc., Cycomm International, Inc., 

DeMarco Energy Systems of America, 

Inc., Eco Soil Systems, Inc., Edulink, 

Inc., H. Quotient, Inc., Healthtrac, Inc., 

Management Technologies, Inc., Metal 

Recovery Technologies, Inc., Paystar 

Corp., Royal Oak Mines, Inc., Rubber 

Technology International, Inc., Seven 

Seas Petroleum, Inc., Surebeam Corp., 

Syncronys Softcorp, Touch America 

Holdings, Inc., U.S. Plastic Lumber 

Corp., and Xcelera, Inc.; Order of 

Suspension of Trading 

August 28, 2006. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Amanda 

Company, Inc. because it has not filed 

any periodic reports since the period 

ended December 31, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of American 

International Petroleum Corp. because it 

has not filed any periodic reports since 

the period ended September 30, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of China 

Continental, Inc. because it has not filed 

any periodic reports since the period 

ended September 30, 2003. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Com21, Inc. 

because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended March 

31, 2003. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Cycomm 

International, Inc. because it has not 

filed any periodic reports since the 

period ended September 30, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of DeMarco 

Energy Systems of America, Inc. 

because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended 

September 30, 2003. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Eco Soil 

Systems, Inc. because it has not filed 

any periodic reports since the period 

ended March 31, 2001. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Edulink, 

Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended 

September 30, 2003. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of H Quotient, 

Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended 

September 30, 2003. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Healthtrac, 

Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 

reports since the period ended 

November 30, 2003. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of 

Management Technologies, Inc. because 

it has not filed any periodic reports 

since the period ended October 31, 

1997. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Metal 

Recovery Technologies, Inc. because it 

has not filed any periodic reports since 

the period ended September 30, 1998. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Paystar 

Corp. because it has not filed any 

periodic reports since the period ended 

September 30, 2002. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Royal Oak 

Mines, Inc. because it has not filed any 

periodic reports since the period ended 

September 30, 1998. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of Rubber 

Technology International, Inc. because 

it has not filed any periodic reports 

since the period ended August 31, 2003. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES